1. Neetu Chhaya 2. Ram Pravesh Mahto 3. Virendra Ram 4. Vijay Kumar Kushwaha v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2768 of 2009 ---------- 1. Neetu Chhaya 2. Ram Pravesh Mahto 3. Virendra Ram 4. Vijay Kumar Kushwaha 5. Shambhu Nath Vishwakarma Versus ………… Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department. 2. The Director, H.R.D. Department (Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education Palamau Division at Medni Nagar. 4. The District Education Officer, Palamau at Medni Nagar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamau at Medni Nagar. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Lesliganj, Palamau. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 8. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Darudih, Lesliganj, Palamau. ………… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Resp.-State For the Resp.-JEPC
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Rakhi Rani, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ---------- 19/ 22.04.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have thrown challenge to order dated 07.03.2009
Decision
bearing Memo No. 444 (Annexure-6 at Page No. 19 of the writ petition), whereby their candidature has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were selected by general meeting as Para Teachers and they claim to be working from 02.08.2004 under the supervision of Chairman of the Gram Shiksha Samitee, which is evident from letter dated 13.09.2004 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau (Respondent No. 7) for approval of the same and for payment of honorarium. It is case of the petitioners that they are working as Para Teachers for the Headmaster, Government of Middle School, Darudih, Lesliganj, Palamau (Respondent No. 8) from August, 2004. Earlier, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 17 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2008 with a direction to the respondent-Authorities to take an informed decision on 1 the representation of the petitioners. In view of earlier direction of this Court, the petitioners preferred their representation before the concerned respondents on 18.02.2008. Thereafter, again on 30.07.2008, recommendations were made in favour of the petitioners. However, later on, the respondent-Authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 07.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have been restrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Ms. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel representing the petitioners, strenuously urges that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It has been emphatically urged that petitioners are working since 2004. Their cases for approval were duly recommended, but the same was neither considered by the Block Level Committee or by the District Level Committee. In absence of approval, neither the petitioners are getting any honorarium, nor their services have been confirmed. It has further been argued that the petitioners duly fulfill the requisite qualifications and are working since 2004 and as such, it was incumbent duty of the respondents to grant approval for their payments as they were appointed following the procedures of law. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and a direction shall be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment and payment of remuneration. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel representing the respondent-J.E.P.C., and Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I representing the respondent-State, makes a submission that case of the petitioners is not worth consideration. It has been argued that petitioners do not fulfill the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Para Teachers. It has been argued that though they were considered for appointment in the year 2004, thereafter, fresh appointments were made in the year 2006. Petitioners never participated in the fresh appointment and as such, they were never appointed. Learned counsels submit that now, at this stage, when no challenge has been thrown to the fresh appointment of the year 2006, petitioners cannot 2 claim for any appointment or remuneration. It has been further argued that the even if any approval had to be granted, the same was to be based on the recommendation of Block Education Committee. Learned counsel submits that since no approval was granted by the Block Education Committee, there was no question of granting any approval by the District Education Committee and as such, since the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite qualifications, they do not have any right to claim for any consideration and on that score itself, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Having gone through the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that:- (i) The petitioners were appointed in the year 2004. Thereafter, in the year 2006 fresh appointments were made. Petitioners never participated in the fresh appointment and as such, were never appointed. (ii) The Claim of the petitioners for granting appointment and approval from the year 2004 does not arise in view of the fact that the fresh appointments, which attained finality after approval of the District Education Committee, were never challenged by the petitioners. (iii) The petitioners do not even fulfill the requisite qualification as per N.C.T. Guidelines and petitioners have not even cleared the T.C.T. Examinations. (iv) At the initial stage, after appointments, recommendations are to be sent by the Block Education Committee to the District Education Committee. In the instant case, however, names of the petitioners was never recommended for approval by the Block Education Committee after their appointment. (v) At the first hand, appointments have to be made by the Block Education Committee. Thereafter, approval has to be granted by the District Education Committee. In absence of any approval and non-fulfillment of the requisite qualifications, the 3 petitioners do not have any claim to be appointed on the said post. (vi) The same issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Umesh Kumar and Another versus The State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous case in L.P.A. No. 306 of 2014. The Court was of the clear view that there were no reasons to entertain the Letters Patent Appeal as the petitioners therein do not fulfill the requisite qualifications and also in view of the fact that the Block Education Committee did not approve their appointments. Rather, those who were appointed in the year 2006, their appointments were recommended for approval by the Block Education Committee and thereafter approved by the District Education Committee. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no interreference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 8. The writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending I.A., if any, shall stand closed. R.Kr./Shashank (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4