1. Birbal Mahto 2. Jitendra Nath Mahto ---------- ……… v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The District Superintendent of Education
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2873 of 2010 1. Birbal Mahto 2. Jitendra Nath Mahto ---------- ………. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Co-Ordinator District Education Programme, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Tamar, P.O. & P.S Tamar, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- ………. Respondents. For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
29/ 19.06.2024 Heard the parties. Prayers made
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate Ms. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III ---------- 2. Petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the honorarium due to the petitioners since July, 2009 till date. Factual Matrix 3. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No. 1, Birbal Mahto was selected as para teacher of Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2 vide resolution dated 25.11.2002 issued by the Village Education Committee , Muchidih-2, under Revenue Village- Burudih in an Aam Sabha held on the same day. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 joined the said post and since then, he has been working with an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month. Thereafter, on 15.02.2007, as per requirement, a fresh Aam Sabha was held and petitioner No. 2 being found suitable, was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher of the Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2. It is the further case of petitioners that though they have been selected in the Aam Sabha of the concerned Village and after their selections, they have been discharging their duties continuously but they are not getting honorarium 2 from July, 2009 onwards. Though peittioners have filed several representations for payment of their honorarium but neither any order has been passed nor the honorarium has not been paid to them. Left with no other option, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 4. Mr. H.K. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously urges that petitioners are entitled for honorarium since they have been appointed as per the procedures and honorarium was also paid to them till June, 2009 but suddenly the same was stopped from July, 2009 onwards. Learned counsel submits that appointment of the petitioners was made by the Village Education Committee which cannot be turned-down by the Block Level Committee as it is not empowered to make fresh appointments or to turn-down the appointments made by Village Level Committee. Learned counsel further argues that it was only on the recommendation of the MLA of concerned area, the appointment of petitioner No. 2 was cancelled and recommendations were made for appointment of one Meera Devi, which is de hors the rules and guidelines for appointment of para teachers. Learned counsel emphatically argues that a direction be given to respondents to pay the honorarium of petitioners which is due from July, 2009 till date. Submissions of learned counsel for the Respondents 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners argues that as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, Ranchi issued vide memo No. 464 dated 23.06.2006, a meeting of Village Education Committee was held on 15.02.2007 for selection of para teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2 but due to disputes no selection was made. Thereafter, on 14.02.2008, again a Gram Sabha was held in which five candidates namely, i) Jitendra Nath Mahto, ii) Jayant Kumar Mahto, iii) Narendra Nath Mahto, iv) Meera Kumari; and v) Madan Kumar have 3 appeared and name of petitioner No. 2, namely, Jitendra nath Mahto was recommended, who was even not the resident of the said village. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Block Level Education Committee in its meeting held on 20.02.2008 and as per resolution No. 17 of the said meeting name of petitioner No. 2 has been recalled and name of one Meera Devi has been approved by the Block Level Education Committee on the ground of qualification and as she was also the local resident of village Muchidih under Tamar Block. Thereafter, the said Meera Devi was sent for two weeks’ training and upon completion of said training she was relieved for joining the Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2. 6. Learned counsel further argues that on enquiry it was found that although the name of petitioner No. 2 was not approved by the Block Level Education Committee but he was illegally paid three months’ honorarium though he was not entitled for the same. It has been further argued that petitioner No. 1 and the Chairman of Village Education Committee namely, Ram Pravesh Mahto have wrongly selected petitioner No. 2 though he was not the resident of village concerned and belongs to Saraikella-Kharsawan district. Hence, the Block Education Committee has rejected the selection of petitioner No. 2 in Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2 and as per decision of the Committee name of Meera Devi was approved for appointment as para teacher on contractual basis for the Upgraded Primary School, Muchidih-2. Learned counsel further argues that several allegations were levelled against the petitioner No. 1 and he was found involved in misappropriation of government funds and had illegally paid honorarium to petitioner No. 2, who was not entitled for the same and as such, he has been removed from the services. Learned counsel submits that since Meera Devi was selected on the said post and her candidature has been approved by the Block Level Education Committee, she is entitled for honorarium, if any and the same shall be paid, if not paid, upon the directions of this Court. Findings of the Court 7. Having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, Block Level Committee is 4 empowered for granting approval of the selection of Para Teachers. It is clearly mentioned in the guidelines that if there is any dispute in the appointment, the matter is to be examined by the Block Level Committee and thereafter, approval be made. The appointment of petitioner No. 2 was not in consonance with the guidelines as she does not belong to the village concerned and was the resident of Saraikella-Kharsawan district. Hence, the appointment of petitioner No. 2 was not approved and the appointment of one Meera Devi, who was having the requisite qualification and was the residents of the concerned village, has been approved by the Block Level Education Committee. 8. From perusal of the affidavits brought on record by the respondents it appears that admittedly appointments of para teachers are made by the Village Education Committee which comprises of elected representatives of village concerned as the Chairman and Member. The Head Teacher of the School becomes the ex-officio Secretary by virtue of his post. Thereafter, Aam Sabha is conducted and the list of candidates coming under the zone of consideration is sent to the Block Level Education Committee for its approval, which happens to the competent body to approve selection of para teachers. In the instant case selection of para teachers were not made by adopting the process/ guidelines issued by the Jharkhand Education Project Council and as such, when the list of successful candidate was sent to the Block Level Education Committee, it refused to accord approval and recommended the appointment of one Meere Devi to the post of para teacher. 9. However, since nothing has been brought on record to show the present status of the matter, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to examine the matter himself or depute a competent Officer to the rank of Additional District Collector to conduct a fresh enquiry and upon enquiry if it is found that petitioner No. 2 was not entitled for any honorarium, how come he has received honorarium and also if the appointment of Meera Devi was approved by the Block Level Education Committee, she should be allowed to continue on the said post and is 5 entitled to receive the honorarium. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of. 11. Before parting with the order, this Court holds that since the matter relates to misuse of government funds in payment of honorarium to petitioner No. 2 who was even not entitled for the same, the responsible persons shall be dealt with heavy-hands and proper action shall be taken against them, in accordance with law. 12. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)