Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 811 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Sah v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-14

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. The appellant claimed to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Koreiva Mission Primary School, Dumka in the year 1995 by the Managing Committee of the School after following the procedure prescribed therefor. Thereafter his appointment was sent for approval before the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. 2. In course of approval process the Director, Primary Education found that the diploma training certificate was obtained by him from the All India Education Society, Calcutta, which was not recognized institution by the State Government and as such the certificate of the said institution for the purpose of employment can also not be recognized. 3. In this regard the District. Superintendent of Education sent communication dated 9.9.1999 to the Secretary of the School with a direction to consider the matter and take a resolution in the Managing Committee for removal of the appellant from service. The Secretary was also directed to send a copy of such resolution to the District Superintendent of Education for approval. 4. Pursuant to the said direction the Secretary of the School sent letter dated 23.12.1999 to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, and informed him about the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 11.12.1999 cancelling the appellants appointment and removing him from service. However, instead of getting the said resolution approved by the District Superintendent of Education by subsequent resolution dated 6.4.2000 the Managing Committee reappointed the appellant and thereafter he joined the post of Assistant teacher again. 5. Nothing has been brought on record to show that is re- appointment dated 7.4.2000 was ever sent for approval and/or for fixation of his salary before the Director, Primary Education. 6. The appellant filed W.P. (S) No. 5913 of 2001 in this Court for appropriate direction to the respondents for payment of his arrears salary from July, 1995, i.e. the date on which he was initially appointed and for regularization of his services as Assistant teacher in the said school. 7. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 11.12.2001 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that in the year 1999 he was removed from service, but he was wrongly reappointed in the year 2000. On behalf of the Managing Committee of the school. 7. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 11.12.2001 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that in the year 1999 he was removed from service, but he was wrongly reappointed in the year 2000. On behalf of the Managing Committee of the school. Nothing was produced before the learned Single Judge to show that while re-appointing him in April, 2000 the relevant Rule or the constitutional mandate, as provided under Article 16 of the Constitution, was followed. The learned Single Judge also observed that after the appellant was removed from service, he cannot advance claim either for regularization of his services or payment of salary from the State Government unless his reappointment was approved by the Director, Primary Education. 8. In our view, once on the direction of the State Government on the ground that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant teacher in the school, as his certificate was not recognized, there was no occasion of his reappointment by the Managing Committee unless and until the direction/order for his removal from service was set aside by the competent authority/ Court and his diploma training certificate was recognized and he was qualified for such appointment. 9. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is not entitled to any relief. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed, but without costs.