Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1139 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order contained in letter No. 1615 of 19.10.2006 (annexure 5) passed by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co-ordinator, Chatra (respondent No. 5) whereby the petitioner's appointment as para teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Godara in the district of Chatra, has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the jharkhand Education Project Parishad for appointment of teachers in the Upgraded Middle Schools, the petitioner had filed his application. The screening committee of the Gram Siksha Samiti considered his candidature and selected him, among others, for appointment as a teacher in the aforesaid school. List of selected candidates were forwarded to the respondent No. 5 for his approval who, accorded his approval with the direction to the concerned authority to ensure joining of the teachers in the respective schools from the selected list enclosed vide his letter No. 1556 dated H,10.2006 (Annexure 3), Pursuant to the direction, the petitioner who was at serial No. 27 in the chart annexed with annexure 3 to this application, submitted his joining in the school on 16.10.2006 and since then he continued to work as a para teacher in the said school. However, without prior information/knowledge to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 issued the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 whereby the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without assigning reasons for cancelling his appointment, though his appointment was duly considered by the Gram Siksha Samiti, is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel submits that in order to accommodate Gopal Prasad Yadav, respondent No. 6, in place of the petitioner his appointment has been cancelled by the impugned order. The petitioner who is continuously rendering service since the date of his joining is therefore entitled to remain in the same post, as also to be paid his remuneration for the services rendered. 4. The petitioner who is continuously rendering service since the date of his joining is therefore entitled to remain in the same post, as also to be paid his remuneration for the services rendered. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 4 and 5, It is stated that though the selection list was approved by respondent No. 5 it was forwarded to the concerned officer with the stipulation that the list was only tentative and the appointment of candidates is subject to necessary verification of all the requisite eligibility criteria including the educational qualifications. It is further stated that as per the information collected, the petitioner's qualification was much lower than the qualification possessed by the other candidates and this aspect was ignored by the committee and therefore the petitioner's selection itself was against the procedure, apart from being tentative. 5. From the rival pleadings, the fact which emerges is that the petitioner's selection was made by the competent authority and names of selected persons were forwarded to the respondent No. 5, who had accorded his approval with the direction to the concerned authority to ensure joining of the candidates from the list approved by him on verification of eligibility criteria and it was pursuant to this direction that the petitioner was allowed to join as a para teacher in the upgraded middle school at Godara (Chatra). 6. As such, it is presumed that the petitioner was allowed to join on 16.10.2006 on the post of a para teacher only after verification of necessary papers/documents relating to his educational qualification, etc. It also appears that having allowed the petitioner to join, the respondents have allowed him to continue to render his services in the school till the date of issuance of the impugned order cancelling his appointment. 7. The facts and circumstances confirm that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post and this fact is re-enforced by allowing the petitioner to continue on the post. Therefore, the cancellation of petitioner's appointment could be made only after giving him an opportunity of being heard. This is the demand of the principles of natural justice. 8. In the instant case, it is apparent that prior to canceling appointment of the petitioner, no prior notice was given to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed cancellation of his appointment. 9. This is the demand of the principles of natural justice. 8. In the instant case, it is apparent that prior to canceling appointment of the petitioner, no prior notice was given to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed cancellation of his appointment. 9. Under the circumstances, the impugned order (annexure 5) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post held by him. 10. With the above observation, this application is disposed of. The respondents shall pay the petitioner the remuneration for the period he has worked for which he has not been paid, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. However, in case the respondents have any valid and reasonable ground against the genuineness of the petitioner's appointment, they will be at liberty to take appropriate steps, only after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be given to the Counsel for the State.