Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 601 (JHR)

Veena Verma (Bhushan) v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-06-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners had moved this Court earlier in CWJC No. 2646 of 1999 (R) with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to approve the regular appointment of the petitioners. This Court by order dated 31.5.2001, Annexure-6 directed the respondent No. 2 to take a final decision in terms of the prayer made by Secretary of the Managing Committee as early as possible preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and communicate the same to the Secretary of the School forthwith. 3. After getting order by the Court the petitioners made representation before the respondent No. 2 with- a copy of the order dated 31.5.2001, to take final decision as per direction of the Court as contained in Annexure-7. 4. By office order dated 7.7.2001, contained in Annexure-11, the recommendation for approval of appointment of the petitioners has been rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioners were not appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts in accordance with Government notification. The petitioners have challenged the said order contained in Annexure-11 and have further prayed for direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners and allow them all consequential relief. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1, namely, Smt. Veena Verma (Bhuhan) appointed as Assistant Teacher in B.M. Model School, on purely temporary basis w.e.f. 13.10.1990, and since then she has been continuously discharging her duties as such. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Smt. Thakur Krishna Kumari Sinha and Laxmi Mukherjee were also appointed as Assistant Teacher on purely temporary basis w.e.f. 1.3.1989, and 22.2.1985, respectively. They have been confirmed for the said post w.e.f. 1.1.1990, and 1.10.1986, respectively by respondent No. 3 vide orders contained in Annexure-3 and 4 respectively in the scale of Rs. 125-5-EB-6-205/- with all other admissible allowances as per School rules such as HRA, IR, DA, ex-gratia etc. 6. It is stated that on 1.8.1998, the Managing Committee, considered the regularization of the petitioners in view of the vacancy which arose due to retirement/superannuation of Mrs. Har Bhajan Kaur, Sri Ramchandra Singh and Miss. Guru Bachan Kaur and after considering all the facts and following the conditions laid down for the appointment the Managing Committee appointed the petitioners in regular cadre of Assistant teacher on B.A. trained scale. Har Bhajan Kaur, Sri Ramchandra Singh and Miss. Guru Bachan Kaur and after considering all the facts and following the conditions laid down for the appointment the Managing Committee appointed the petitioners in regular cadre of Assistant teacher on B.A. trained scale. It is stated that the Secretary, B.M. Model School vide letter dated 12.11.1998, Annexure-5 requested the respondent No. 2 District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur for approval of the appointment of the petitioners made by the Managing Committee. 7. It is stated that B.M. Model School, Jamshedpur is Minority Institution duly declared by the State Government and as such it is prerogative of the Managing Committee of the School for appointment of the employee including teachers and the Managing Committee of the School used to make the appointment of the teachers after following the procedure prescribed under the law and same is being sent for approval by the District Superintendent of Education. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that they were appointed after following all procedures and the petitioners have also submitted the photocopies of their appointment and continuous service in the School. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has only the jurisdiction to examine the veracity of the documents and has no jurisdiction to reject the same as the recommendation made by the Managing Committee is binding upon respondent No. 2 as such the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 passed by respondent No. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appointment made by the Managing Committee of the School is illegal and not binding on the Government, as the petitioners were not appointed against the vacant sanctioned post in accordance with Government notification dated 31.12.1982. It is also submitted that the regularization of the petitioners against the vacancies arising in the year 1997 and 1998 is also illegal on the ground that they were never working against vacant sanctioned post for which advertisement was issued and interview held before their appointment. 10. It is also submitted that the regularization of the petitioners against the vacancies arising in the year 1997 and 1998 is also illegal on the ground that they were never working against vacant sanctioned post for which advertisement was issued and interview held before their appointment. 10. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that on 2.8.1999, the Secretary of the School forwarded the names of three teachers namely, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar Prasad and Murlidhar Singh for approval of their appointment against vacant posts created on retirement of Shri Ram Chandra Singh, Guru Bachan Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur on 13.1.1997, 13.12.1997 and 31.7.1998, respectively. The respondent No. 2 has already issued office order Nos. 964 and 965 dated 13.6.2003, approving the appointment of Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Dilip Kumar Prasad and the approval of Shri Murlidhar Singh is under process. It is submitted that now there is no post vacant. These facts stated in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioners. 11. From the pleadings of the parties the fact emerges that against the vacancies which occurred due to the retirement superannuation of three teachers namely, Harbhajan Kaur, Ramchandra singh and Guru Bachan Kaur, the names of three teachers namely, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar Prasad and Murlidhar Singh were sent by the School to District Superintendent of Education, who by his order dated 13.6.2003, has already approved the appointment of Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Dilip Kumar Prasad. However, the approval of Sri Murlidhar Singh is under process and, therefore, it is apparent that all the three posts have already been filled up. From the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11, it appears that the D.S.E. has fully considered the facts and points raised by the petitioners and then has passed the order after applying his mind to the materials on record. The said order is a well-reasoned order and I find no illegality in it. The reasons assigned by the D.S.E. in his order are perfectly justified. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application which is thus dismissed.