Suryadeo Kumar Dangi … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Dy. Commissioner, Chatra. 3. The District Superintendent
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 446 of 2020 Suryadeo Kumar Dangi … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Dy. Commissioner, Chatra. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra. 4. The District Education Officer, Chatra. 5. The Block Extension Education Officer, Mayurhand, Chatra. 6. Managing Committee cum Gram Siksha Samity, Mayurhand, Chatra. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I 6/ 22.06.2023 ------ Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.8.2019, whereby, the service of the petitioner as Para-Teacher was terminated. Petitioner has also prayed for payment of salary / honorarium from May, 2017 till the date of termination dated 21.8.2019. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Para-Teacher by the Village Education Committee in Upgraded Middle School, Sargawan in the district of Chatra in its meeting dated 30.11.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner worked to the satisfaction of all concerned and was getting honorarium regularly. One fine morning, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner to the effect that since the petitioner did not have English subject as optional paper at graduation level, he is not eligible for appointment. Denying the allegation, the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.2.2017 that his appointment was based on graduation (BA) degree and there is no illegality therein. However, Block Education Extension Officer, Mayurchand wrote a letter on 21.2.2017 to the school management committee that the appointment of the petitioner be cancelled at the earliest. In turn, the school management committee terminated the service of the petitioner in its meeting dated 21.8.2019 without issuing even a show cause, which compelled the petitioner to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order has been passed without even issuing a show cause. He further submits that even petitioner was working as 2 contractual employee, issuance of show cause is a sine qua non. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner having the requisite qualification was appointed as para-teacher by the village education committee and his appointment was approved by the block level committee. Learned counsel relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary Vs. Abahi Kumar, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328 submits that once the appointment has been made long back pursuant to a selection process need not be disturbed. Lastly, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 21.8.2019, but he was not paid honorarium from May, 2017 and hence, he is entitled for the same. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent JEPC submit that the petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis under the aegis of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and the Jharkhand Education Project Council. On complaint, letter was issued to the school managing committee to terminate the petitioner at once vide letter dated 21.2.2017, as the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for appointment. The qualification of the petitioner is B.A. without English as optional paper, which is essential requirement for appointment of para teacher. However, a show cause notice vide letter dated 17.8.2019 was issued to the petitioner and after finding it unsatisfactory, the petitioner was terminated by the school management committee in view of decision taken in its meeting dated 21.8.2019. Referring to para-6 of the counter affidavit, it has also been pointed out that after expiry of one year of initial contract period, the service of the petitioner was never renewed and thereafter he is working as monthly wagers. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity the impugned order worth interference by this Court. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as para-teacher. The post of para-teacher is a contractual post. Once it came to light that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification for appointment as para-teacher, show cause notice was issued. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the school management committee on the recommendation of Block Education Extension Officer, the petitioner was terminated from service. Law is well settled no appointment can be made 3 dehors the rules. The terms and conditions of appointment has to be considered in right perspective. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 held as under:- “29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 7. On overall considerations, it can comfortably be said that rightly the petitioner was terminated from service. No interference is warranted in the order of dismissal dated 21.8.2019. The ratio relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary (supra) is of no help to the petitioner in the facts and situation of the case. 8. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not been paid honorarium from May 2017 till the date of termination. The work was taken from the petitioner by the school management committee and no heed was paid for payment of honorarium. As such, the respondent concerned is directed to make payment of honorarium to the petitioner from May 2017 till the date of termination i.e. 21.8.2019 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9.
Decision
This writ petition stands disposed of, as indicated above. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)