Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 422 (JHR)

Gora Chand Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

2006-04-20

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2006
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order contained in letter No. 139 dated 8th October, 2005, issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Jharkhand Education Programme Co-ordinator, East Singhbhum, whereby and whereunder, if has been directed not to take work from Para Teachers, such as petitioners. 2. It appears that in pursuance of a scheme, 'Jharkhand Gram Shiksha Abhiyan', one school for each village was opened. It was stated in the said scheme to run such school through Gram Samiti of which the District Superintendent of Education of the concerned district was made District Gram Co-ordinator. As per such scheme, many persons were engaged as Para Teachers for which the agreements were reached between Para Teachers and the Village Education Committee. The petitioners were also engaged as Para Teachers by agreement dated 17th November, 2003 for a period of one year. Thereafter, a fresh agreement was issued on 25th October, 2004 for another one year. 3. Subsequently, if was decided to engage Para Teachers from amongst the persons, who are intermediate/Graduate. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Jharkhand Education Programme (Coordinator, East Singhbhum, thereafter, on the basis of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, issued impugned letter No. 139 dated 8th October, 2005 and thereby directed not to take work from Para Teachers, such as petitioners, who are simply matriculate. 4. It is true that the Deputy Commissioner or the District Superintendent of Education has no power to amend the scheme. If one or other qualification has been laid down by the State Government under the scheme for appointment of Para Teachers, neither it can be enhanced, nor lowered down by any authority without obtaining any order of the State. 5. However, in the present case, as it appears that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis for a period of one year which was extended for another one year by a subsequent contract and the said contract having come to an end on or before 23rd October, 2005, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned letter No. 139 dated 8th October, 2005. Though it is open to the respondents not to take work from one or other Para Teacher, but till the lifetime of the contract, they cannot deny their wages to which they were entitled. 6. Though it is open to the respondents not to take work from one or other Para Teacher, but till the lifetime of the contract, they cannot deny their wages to which they were entitled. 6. If the agreement reached between the petitioners and respondents was continued till 23rd October, 2005, the respondents should pay the arrears of wages of such period within two months from the date of receipt/production for a copy of this order. 7. So far as petitioners are concerned, it will be open to them to apply in pursuance of the advertisement, if any, issued in future. If the petitioners are found eligible, the respondents will consider their case for appointment as Para Teachers, giving preference over newcomers. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Petition disposed of.