The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5796 of 2012 ---------- 1. Raghunandan Oraon 2. Ravindra Kumar 3. Anupa Tirkey 4. Sachin Kumar 5. Shivnandan Soren 6. Jitendra Kumar 7. Mithilesh Prasad Chaurasia 8. Mamta Elizabeth Lakra 9. Ram Sunder Sharma 10. Suleshwar Sahu 11. Piyush Kumar 12. Ambujaya Kumar Pandey 13. Sunila Lakra 14. Nalini Ranjan 15. Shiv Kumar Mallick 16. Amit Kumar Mukherjee 17. Anup M. Kerketta 18. Prakash Kumar 19. Uday Kumar Singh 20. Joyti Xalxo 21. Mamta Kumari 22. Subol Chandra Kapoor 23. Biplob Ranjan Das 24. Amit Vishwakarma 25. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta 26. Swapinl Hemant Kujur 27. Shamshad Ali 28. Narendra Kumar 29. Jayant Kumar 30. Pankaj Kumar 31. Alok Raj 32. Umesh Kumar Sinha 33. Raghubansh Kumar 34. Rajesh Ranjan 35. Amita Lakra 36. Bedawanti Kumari 37. Meetu Sinha 38. Sanjay Kumar 39. Anjula Kumari 40. Kumari Dolly 41. Rakesh Kumar Panday 42. Hari Oraon 43. Krishna Singh 44. Manoj Kumar 45. Amar Prakash Tuti 2 46. Shubhkamna Prasad 47. Aruna Lata Kerketta 48. Ajoy Kundu 49. Ashish Kumar 50. Shailendra Kumar 51. Pravin Kumar Jha 52. Dhirsen A. Soreng 53. Abhishek Shukla 54. Krishna Mohan Mahato 55. Rupesh Kumar Mohanty 56. Tapash Kumar Dawn 57. Ganesh Chandra Bodra 58. Nagendra Kumar 59. Ravindra Kumar Rajak 60. Kumar Mukesh 61. Nandan Kumar Jha 62. Santosh Kumar Tudu 63. Sion Kindo 64. Vijay Prakesh 65. Biplav Kumar Sarkar 66. Rajiv Sharan 67. Chandan Soni 68. Chentan Kumar Verma 69. Manoj Kumar Singh 70. Sanjay Rana 71. Sudhir Kumar Sharma 72. Anil Kumar 73. Bikash Bhushan 74. Dinesh Kumar 75. Noni Gopal Mandal 76. Om Prasad Gandhi 77. Rajnish Kisku 78. Anil Kumar Chauhan 79. Alokit Kumar 80. Bijay Kumar Hembrom 81. Marshal Rishiraj Tudu 82. Sahab Yadav 83. Saroj Kumar Jha 84. Chandra Sekhar Singh Roy 85. Jayshree Boipai 86. Sonali Patra 87. Uma Kumari 88. Anil Kumar 89. Ram Ranjan 90. Rashmi Singh 91. Yesmita Singh 92. Ajit Kumar 93. Imtiyaz Ahmad 94. Krishna Manohar Singh 3 95. Swatantra Kumar Das 96. Narendra Kumar Singh 97. Mithun Kumar Sagar 98. Shyam Sundar Mahto 99. Gurupada Mahato 100. Kiten Soren 101. Mamta Dubey 102. Mukesh Kumar Gupta 103. Natho Mahato 104. Pankaj Kumar Mahato 105. Rabi Kanta Bhakat 106. Sidheshwar Jha 107. Akhilesh Nag 108. Arun Vishwarkarma 109. Balraj Kapoor 110. Chandrakant Birua 111. Chunnu Murmu 112. Hemant Kumar Ray 113. Mihir Chandra Biruly 114. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 115. Subhash Chandra Sundi 116. Dileep Kumar Gorai 117. Bagish Kumar Pandey 118. Deenbandhu Barik 119. Pawan Modak 120. Rajesh Kumar Sahu 121. Brahmadeo Singh 122. Ravindra Nr. Singh 123. Shweta Kumari 124. Anil Kumar Pandey 125. Dilip Kumar Upadhayay 126. Jagmohan Thakur 127. Manoj Kumar Sukla 128. Dinesh Kumar 129. Md. Zulker Nain Ansari 130. Sandeep Kujur 131. Ganga Ram Mandal 132. Pradip Kumar Mandal 133. Uttam Kumar Mondal 134. Alok Kumar 135. Anil Kachhap 136. Michael Bage 137. Sanjay Lakra 138. Sweth Guria 139. Shyam Bihari Prasad Yadav 140. Sandip Kumar Sahu 141. Sanjay Kumar Sinha 142. Bachchu Prasad 143. Praful Chandra Roy 4 144. Pramod Kumar 145. Shivendra Bahadur Lal 146. Utpala Sardar 147. Lakhendra Mahto 148. Satyadeo Paswan 149. Manas Satpathy 150. Saroj Kumar Kar 151. Ajay Ram 152. Kishore Chandra Das 153. Prabhu Dayal Singh 154. Sanjay Kumar 155. Sohwa Devi 156. Usha Magdali Tirkey 157. Md. Mumtaz Ansari 158. Sukin Murmu 159. Bibhishan Purty 160. Manoj Mukhi 161. Md. Israil Ansari 162. Sanatan Mukhi 163. Permeshwar Mahto 164. Sadhu Charan Purty 165. Sisilia Aind 166. Rajesh Kumar Singh 167. Ashok Kumar ………. Petitioners 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, Executive Committee of Versus Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi. 3. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioners For the Resp.
Facts
09/ 19.02.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ----------
Legal Reasoning
submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3477 of 2002 (Nazir Ahmad & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.),
Arguments
M/s. Rajendra Krishna, Amit Sinha, Shubham Mayank, Ratna Prabha, Advocates Mr. A.K. Dubey, AC to GA-III 2. The petitioners are seeking a direction upon the respondent- Jharkhand Education Project Council to regularize their services and treat them at par with the regular employees working in the Jharkhand Education 5 Project Council. Further prayer has been made to command upon the respondents to abide by the service conditions enshrined in the “Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Regulations, 1994” which was adopted by the Jharkhand Education Project Council for the purpose of continuation / discontinuation of the contract of the employees like the petitioners. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
Decision
disposed of on 16.8.2019, wherein, this Court held that petitioners could not claim any vested or enforceable legal right to claim regularization in JEPC on the basis of contractual appointment and that too solely on the basis of scheme. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the matter fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 858 of 2019 (Nazir Ahmad & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) decided on 8.8.2023, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to affirm the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 3477 of 2022. 4. So far as the second prayer for implementation of Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Regulations, 1994 is concerned, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that already the said Regulations, 1994 is adopted by the State of Jharkhand and the same is not applicable to the case of contractual employees, rather, it is only applicable to the regular employees. The present petitioners being contractual employees shall not be guided by the said Regulations, 1994 and hence, it is a fit case for no interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. The issue regarding regularization of contractual employees working in Jharkhand Education Project Council fell for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3477 of 2002 and after hearing the parties, the Court declined to interfere therein. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- “14. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court finds that the appointment of the petitioners was on fully 6 its taking into consideration contractual basis and the appointment letter in this regard speaks for itself. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are working with the JEPC under a scheme. The scheme is being funded by the Government of India in which a small amount is being contributed by the State Government. JEPC are within their jurisdiction to take a decision whether the petitioners service can be regularized or not. That decision can only be taken by the JEPC as per the financial requirement conditions and other relevant factors. It also needs to be looked into that the petitioners could not claim any vested or enforceable legal right to claim regularization in JEPC on the basis of contractual appointment and that too solely on the basis of scheme. Para-53 of the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (s) (2006) 4 SCC 1 will not help the petitioners because, they were appointed on the basis of a scheme which is clearly depicted in appointment letter and accordingly, would come to an end and the closure of scheme by JEPC. The petitioners were not appointed on a duly stationed vacant post. In that view of the matter, Para- 53 of Uma Devi (3) will not come to aid of the petitioners. The prayer for regularization is not made with Government of Jharkhand rather it is made with JEPC and how the JEPC work has been dealt (supra). Any direction by this court at this stage may come in the way and break the terms of providing education by the State.” 6. Thereafter, the order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 858 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench held that the issue of legal vested right of the contractual engagee has been taken consideration which led the learned Single Judge not to pass any positive direction, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from any error and thereby rejected the appeal. So far as the second prayer is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same is not applicable with reference to the contractual employees and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for the same. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-