The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3402 of 2021 ------- Rajendra Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of Nandlal modi, resident of Village Laganawa, P.O. Shiladih, P.S. Gorhar, District Hazaribag. …Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S, Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag. 6. The District Education Officer, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag. ... … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Adv. : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv. ------- CAV on:- 09.08.2024 Pronounced on:-29/10/2024 ------- In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief (s) :- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order as contained in memo no. 11/e.01-153 / 2012-2960, dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure-8 of this writ application) issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 (Director, Secondary Education), whereby the recognition of services 1 of the petitioner granted vide order as contained in memo no. 382 dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure-4 of this writ application) has been withdrawn in view of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018, passed in L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 (Annexure-6 of this writ application), in which similarly situated employee namely Bhagirathi Dey’s case for teachers’ training certificate validity obtained from Sister Nivedita College has been rejected, but however now that order has been reversed by the Hon’ ble Apex Court, in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018 (Annexure-9 of this writ application). (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, as Trained Teacher (Project Girls High School, Barkattha, Hazaribagh) and re-grant the recognition of services that was withdrawn by the impugned order, along with continuity and other consequential benefits, including the arrears of salary pending w.e.f. January, 1989, as per the notification dated 09.02.2011 (424) (Annexure-5 of this writ application); (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of Office order, dated 7th August 2023 (Annexure-16), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag (Respondent no. 5) , whereby the case of the petitioner, that was referred by the Director, Secondary Education had been rejected; (amended prayer in view of order dated 02.04.2024 in IA No. 8098 of 2023) 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher by the Managing Committee, in Project Girls High School, Barkattha, Hazaribagh. He was appointed against the subject Mathematics and at the time of appointment he was a graduate in Science. His date of appointment was 03.01.1984 and he gave his joining on 06.02.1984. The petitioner completed his training as Bachelor of 2 Education in the year 1992 from Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta. The case of the petitioner was considered and
Legal Reasoning
after duly confirming all credentials, the petitioner was recognized in services, vide order dated 03.03.2017, with a condition that this recognition would depend upon the final outcome of the pending appeal, being L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014, before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench in the said L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014, vide order dated 03.05.2018, decided that the certificate attained by Bhagirathi Dey from Sister Nivedita College in the year 1993 was invalid. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, a show-cause was issued against the petitioner on 16.10.2019 to which the petitioner duly replied. The reply of the petitioner did not appeal to respondents and they passed the impugned order dated 4.12.2019 recalling the recognition granted to the petitioner. 3.
Legal Reasoning
It has been submitted by Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel that the case of the petitioner is exactly similar to that of Bhagirathi Dey who was the respondent in L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014. It has been further submitted by him that the matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.27694 of 2018 and vide order dated 17.11.2020, the order passed in L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 has been set-aside, holding that the petitioner therein is entitled for absorption and the validity of the certificate of teachers training issued by Sister Nivedita College is valid. He contended that the case of the petitioner was rejected giving reference of this matter saying that the matter of Bhagirathi Dey having the certificate from the same college has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court, in L.P.A. No.265 of 2014, vide order dated 3 03.05.2018. Now, since the order of the Division Bench has been set-aside and validity of certificate of teachers training issued by Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court; as such, the case of the petitioner is covered by the same decision; as such
Decision
the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that; even otherwise, the case of the petitioner should have been considered by the Director, Secondary Education; however, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is totally devoid of jurisdiction; as such, the petitioner should be absorbed in service by recalling the order dated 03.03.2017. 5. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed by the School Managing Committee and at the time of his selection the petitioner only held Graduate Degree. The petitioner later claimed to have acquired a Senior Teachers Training Course diploma from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, in December 1992. However, this diploma is disputed, and its validity has not been recognized by the respondents. Further, no evidence has been provided by the petitioner to prove the legitimacy of the training course or its compliance with the educational standards of Jharkhand. She further submits that several investigations were conducted by fact-finding and district-level committees to ascertain whether the petitioner was indeed working at Project Girls High School, Barkatha. One such investigation occurred on 26th July 2023, during which committee members visited the school for a field inspection. The school’s records, including the attendance registers and class routines, did not show any 4 evidence that the petitioner had worked continuously at the school since his alleged appointment. Additionally, the headmaster confirmed that the petitioner was not part of the official teaching staff recognized by the government. She further contended that after a series of investigations and committee findings, the Director of Secondary Education rejected the petitioner’s claim for recognition through Memo No. 1604 dated 13th June 2024, citing the lack of evidence supporting his continuous employment at the school. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, after reviewing the findings of various committees, passed a speaking order on 7th August 2023, which thoroughly addressed the petitioner’s claims and concluded that he was not entitled to recognition or arrears of salary for any period before August 2017. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the respective affidavits, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Project Girls High School, Hazaribagh and gave his joining on 06.02.1984 and completed his training as Bachelor of Education in 1992 from Sister Nivedita College Calcutta. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Alam Committee in the year 2007 which submitted a report, rejecting the case of the petitioner holding that petitioner was not trained at the time of appointment. However, in the matter of Sukhdeo Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand and others [W.P. (S) No. 5161 of 2009], vide order dated 22.02.2012, it was decided by this Court that the cut-off date for attaining training was 30.09.2007; the time by which the Alam Committee had submitted its 5 report. The petitioner thereafter represented before the respondents and ultimately filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S). No. 3342 of 2012, wherein vide order dated 14.08.2012, the case of the petitioner was remanded for consideration. Consequently, the case of the petitioner was considered and after duly confirming the credentials vide order dated 03.03.2017 the petitioner was recognised in service with a condition that this recognition would depend upon the final outcome of the pending appeal, being L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014, before the Division Bench of this Court. It further transpires from record that in the appeal before the Division Bench, being L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014, the matter of similarly situated Bhagirathi Dey was challenged. In the case of Bhagirathi Dey, who had also attained certificate from Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta, in the year 1993; the Division Bench vide its order dated 03.05.2018 held that the certificate attained by Bhagirathi Dey from Sister Nivedita College in the year 1993 was invalid and the appeal filed by the State was allowed. 7. It is further evident from record that a show cause was issued against the petitioner pursuant to the decision rendered in the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 to which the petitioner replied that Bhagirathi Dey had already moved in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27694 of 2018 and the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A No. 265 of 2014 has been stayed. However, the reply of the petitioner did not appeal to the respondents who passed an order stating that the stay of the order dated 3.05.2018 for L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 was applicable for Bhagirathi Dey and petitioner cannot avail benefit of that stay order; as such, the 6 recognition granted to the petitioner was recalled by the impugned order dated 04.12.2019. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 17.11.2020 set-aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 holding that the petitioner therein (Bhagirathi Dey) was entitled to absorption and the certificate of teachers training issued by Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta was valid. 8. Thus, the moot question to be decided by this court is, “whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Dey ?” From bare perusal of the order of recognition of this petitioner granted by the respondents dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure -4) was subject to the decision of L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014 and the show cause letter dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure 7) and the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure 8) also speaks that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to that of Bhagirathi Dey as the main issue in latter’s case was also regarding the validity of certificate of teachers training issued by Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta which was held to be valid by Hon’ble Apex Court; as such, once the case of Bhagirathi Dey was decided in his favour; it should guide the decision in case of the petitioner as well; as the condition raised in the original order of absorption being fulfilled. 9. It further appears from record that one order dated 6.04.2016, was passed pursuant to the direction of the writ court in WP(S) No. 3342 of 2012, wherein the case of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of report submitted a Committee of DEO , Hazaribagh and BEO, Barkatha. The said order, however, was recalled subsequently by the Director of Secondary Education, 7 and subsequent Order dated the 3rd March 2017 was passed. In the Order dated 3rd March 2017, the two issues, on the basis of which the case of the Petitioner was rejected for absorption by the earlier order dated 6th April 2016, was met, and the ground of rejection was declined. The first ground was that there was no attendance on the attendance register of the school, bearing name of the petitioner and his attendance. The Director then held that this ground of rejection is not tenable, for the reason that for the candidates of Project Girls High School, who were appointed by the Managing Committee, the attendance register was maintained separately, and the same was different from the attendance register of the permanent government employees of the school. The second ground was that another teacher from the same school, appointed by the Managing Committee, and bearing same Educational Qualifications, was absorbed. His name is Umesh Kumar Sharma. Thus, in the light of the above two facts the earlier Order dated 6.04.2016 was declined and the petitioner was absorbed by the subsequent order dated 3rd March 2017 which was subject to the decision of aforesaid L.P.A No. 265 of 2014. 10. Thereafter, the decision of Bhagirathi Dey was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, holding that the petitioner therein (Bhagirathi Dey) was entitled to absorption and the certificate of teachers training issued by Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta was valid. Thus, in normal circumstances, the case of the petitioner should have been considered for absorption in pursuance to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Dey, since the same was the condition 8 precedent indicated in the said order of absorption dated, 3rd March 2017. 11. However, during the pendency of the present writ application, the Respondent Director passed an order dated 31.03.2022 and the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, with a direction to calculate the attendance of the petitioner and the amount to be paid to him, after absorption, on the basis of the fact that the original order of absorption dated 3.03.2017, was to be restored, and the Impugned Order dated 4.12.2019 was to be recalled. On the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 7.08.2023, wherein, reliance was placed on the order dated 6.04.2016, whereby the case of the petitioner was earlier rejected and the Deputy Commissioner, however did not go into the order of absorption dated 3.03.2017 and its recall by the order dated 4th December 2019. Thus, the subsequent orders which superseded the earlier order dated 06.04.2016 have been overlooked by the Deputy Commissioner; as such, the order dated 07.08.2023 does not have any legs to stand in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Having regard to the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Bhagirathi Dey and the contention of the respondents that there was no record of the petitioner including the attendance registers is also not tenable in view of the admitted fact that the attendance register of the managing committee has not been perused as is evident from the order of Director, Secondary Education dated 03.03.2017. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9 04.12.2019 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent no. 3; whereby the recognition of services of the petitioner granted vide order as contained in memo no. 382 dated 03.03.2017 was withdrawn & the impugned order dated 7th August 2023 (Annexure-16), passed by Respondent no. 5; whereby the case of the petitioner, that was referred by the Director, Secondary Education, had been rejected; are hereby, quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated in the service forthwith. Further, the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits subject to the verification of the attendance register maintained by Managing committee, for which necessary order be passed by the concerned respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application is disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/- AFR 10