Moinuddin … v. 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Director of Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. District Education
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2823 of 2003 ............ Moinuddin ….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Director of Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. District Education Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West 4. District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, Singhbhum (West) 5. Secretary, Urdu Town Middle School, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum .... Respondents ----------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ............. For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.C.Roy, Advocate : Mr. Ram Prakash Shekhar, J.C. to G.P. II Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate ............ 12/12.12.2013 Seeking quashing of order dated 06.09.2002 and 06.12.2002, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are that, in January, 1993 an advertisement was issued for filling up two posts of teachers in Matric-trained scale in the Urdu Town Middle School, Chakradharpur. The petitioner submitted his application and he was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Urdu Town Middle School is a minority institution and the appointment letter dated 20.02.1993 was issued by the then Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School. The petitioner has qualification of Bachelor of Arts and he has acquired 2 Dip.-Ed. also. By order dated 01.07.1994, the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa provisionally approved the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.03.1993. The petitioner was paid salary in the scale of Matric-trained, i.e. Rs 580-860 regularly. By letter dated 16.03.1999, the District Superintendent of Education directed the Secretary of all the primary and middle school to submit details with respect to sanctioned posts and teachers working in the minority institutes. In Urdu Town Middle School 10 posts of teachers were sanctioned and there were 9 teachers including the petitioner, working in the school. 3. On 27.08.1998 a proposition statement was sent by the District Superintendent of Education to the Director, Primary Education for approval of the pay-scale of the teachers working on the sanctioned post. The proposition statement of the petitioner was not approved and it was kept pending and his salary was stopped and therefore, the petitioner moved the High Court in CWJC No. 278 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of on 15.12.2000 with a direction to the District Superintendent of Education to pass a reasoned order and with a further direction to pay the admitted salary to the petitioner, if found due, within one month. Since the order of the Court was not complied with, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a Contempt Petition being MJC No. 286 of 2001. During the pendency of the 3 contempt petition, order dated 22.02.2001 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(S) No. 2349 of 2001 challenging order dated 22.02.2001, which was disposed of by order dated 07.03.2002 with a direction to the respondents to obtain necessary approval of the proposition statement. The petitioner again moved this Court by filing Contempt (Civil) No. 467 of 2002. By order dated 06.09.2002 the proposition statement of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that only one post of B.A. trained teacher and one post for Inter- trained teacher were sanctioned, whereas in the advertisement issued in January, 1993 one post of teacher in Scout, Sports and Drill was advertised by the School for which no sanction was accorded by the Government. The petitioner was neither Matric-trained at the time of his appointment nor there was a vacant post for Matric-trained
Legal Reasoning
teacher. The order dated 06.09.2002 has been challenged in the present proceeding. By order dated 09.09.2003, the respondents were restrained from terminating the service of the petitioner without prior permission of the Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under : 5. “That with regard to the statement
Decision
made in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, it is stated that the prayer made in para-1 of the writ petition is not maintainable, since the impugned order dated 4 06.09.2002 passed by Respondent no.2 is well reasoned order and there is no illegality in the same in view of the fact that two units of posts are for B.A. trained teacher and another Intermediate trained teacher has been sanctioned by the Additional Director, Human Resources Development, Branch Secretariate, Ranchi but the Secretary of the said School published vacancy for the post of Scout, Sports and Drill teacher and appointed the petitioner without any valid sanctioned post and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the present writ application is fit to be dismissed.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Mrs. M.M.Pal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, since the petitioner was appointed pursuant to selection done by the Managing Committee of the School and his appointment has been approved by the District Superintendent of Education, by order dated 06.09.2002 the respondents have illegally rejected the proposition statement of the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner has continued for more than 20 years and pursuant to the order passed by this Court he has been paid salary though not in the revised pay scale, the proposition statement of the petitioner could not have been rejected on 5 the plea that there was no sanctioned post for Scout, Sports and Drill teacher. The post of Physical Instructor is equivalent to the post of Assistant Teacher and the petitioner who is graduate is duly qualified for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. She has further submitted that though letters were written to the respondent-authority for sending the petitioner for training, for unknown reasons the petitioner was not sent for training and therefore, it is not open to the respondent-authority to take the plea that, the petitioner was not duly qualified. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions reported in 2001 (2) BLJR 807, 2002 (2) PLJR 112, 2002 (3) JCR 61, AIR 2001 SC 706, AIR 1996 SC 302. 7. As against the above, Mr. Ram Prakash Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the initial appointment of the petitioner was itself illegal, the proposition statement of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was not even possessing the minimum qualification for being appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and therefore, his appointment by the then Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School was illegal. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme