Rita Kumari @ Rita Devi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Human Resource, Ranchi 2
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 5691 of 2012 ------- Rita Kumari @ Rita Devi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Human Resource, Ranchi 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Jharkhand, Department of Human Resource, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 4. The District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Deoghar 5. The Block Education Officer-cum-Block Programme Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar 6. The Secretary, Gram Shiksha Samiti, Upgraded Primary School, Pahridih(I), Deoghar 7. The President, Gram Shiksha Samiti, Upgraded Primary School, Pahridih (I), Deoghar 8. The Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Ranch ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V ------- 05/08.07.2013 The petitioner has moved this Court seeking direction upon the respondents to pay honorarium amount from April, 2008 which has been withheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher on 08.05.2003 in the Upgraded Primary School, Pahridih, Sonaraithari (Sarwan), District- Deoghar. On 31.10.2008, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, whereby she was asked to show-cause on the allegation that her Certificate/Mark-sheet was found forged on verification. The petitioner submitted her reply on 10.11.2008 giving the details of her matriculation certificate with seal, obtained in the year 1989. It appears that the respondent wrote a letter to the Secretary, Bihar 2 School Examination Board, Patna, on 10.08.2011 seeking verification of the matriculation mark-sheet of the petitioner. By letter dated 20.09.2011, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, informed the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar, the details of the mark-sheet of the petitioner. Thus, upon verification of the mark- sheet, it was found that the descriptions given in the mark-sheet which was sent by the respondent to the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, carried the same description in the record of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. It further appears that again, by letter dated 09.04.2012, the respondent- District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar, was intimated the same details. However, the salary of the petitioner was not paid and therefore, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 1985 of 2011. However, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 10.01.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the authorities, however, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which copies of the letter dated 20.09.2011 and 09.04.2012 written by the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, have been annexed and a plea has been taken that since the letter number and date on the letters are different, the certificate of the petitioner appears to be forged. In paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11, the plea raised by the respondents are as under, 9. “That it is relevant to state here that all of a sudden vide letter no. NI/5402 dated 3
Decision
20.09.2011 a verification certificate under cover RL-No-2632 from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the office of answering respondent and petitioner annexed Annexure- 2 to the writ petition in which letter no. and date is different which creates doubt and authenticity of this letter and for better appreciation of the matter by the Hon'ble Court both letters are appended herewith. 10. That it also not out of place to mention here that the District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar has issued letter no. SSA/354 dated 25-05-2006 to set at knot the engagement of Para Teacher, who were not holding minimum Intermediate qualification and the petitioner was not holding Intermediate qualification on or before 25-05-2006 as such she was not entitled to be engaged as Para Teacher on or after 25-05.206. 11. That it is also very much important to stated here that Jharkhand State Education Project Council, Ranchi vide letter no. JEPC/2251 dated 25-10-2008 made it crystal clear that those candidates whose result for Intermediate qualification published in May- June, 2008 as such she was/is not entitled to be retained as Para Teacher and pursuant to the direction of the letter no. JEPC/ 1755 dated 01-07-2010 dated 01-07-2010 and letter no. JEPC/1253 dated 25.06.2012 of Jharkhand State Education Project Council, Ranchi training qualification for engagement of Para Teacher is must provided the candidate passed TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST to meet the requirement of RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT 2009 which is made applicable in the State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 01.04.2010.” 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the documents on record clearly indicates that the appointment of the petitioner is not under challenge on any other ground except that the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner appears to be forged. The respondents have inferred that the said 4 mark-sheet of the petitioner is forged because there are two letters written from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, one is dated 20.09.2011 and another is dated 09.04.2012 and since the two letters bear different letter numbers, therefore, the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner is forged. I am not able to accept such contention raised on behalf of the respondents. It was open to the respondents to seek further verification from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. It is a case in which the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, has written two letters in response to the letter no. 459 dated 10.08.2011 written by the respondents giving details of mark-sheet of the petitioner which carry the same description as written on the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner. The approach of the respondents in the present case is clearly erroneous and it cannot be approved by this Court. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P. V, appearing for the State, fairly admitted that as the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year, 2008, the subsequent circular which has become effective from 01.04.2010, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, in so far as requirement of obtaining training is concerned. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the legal honorarium amount to the petitioner. Manish/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) 5