Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 145 (JHR)

Anju Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2008-02-12

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 78 dated 8.2.07 (Annexure-7) issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarh as well as the Letter No. 135 dated 22.1.07 (Annexure-8) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, so far as the petitioner is concerned. By the said letter the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Para Teacher, has been terminated on the ground that she does not reside at Village-Kabilaspur, which is a condition for her appointment and comes from Village-Ramgarah. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was duly appointed as Para Teacher in the Village-Kabilaspur. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualification' and she is the permanent resident of Village Kabilaspur, She was duly selected by Aam Sabha of the village. The petitioner was appointed in the month of October 2006 and since thereafter, she had been working in the said school. 3. Suddenly by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarh on the purported basis of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, -Dumka as contained in Annexure-8, her services has been terminated on the ground that she is not residing in the said village. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that before issuing the order of her termination, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her. It has been stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident and the allegation that she does not reside at Village-Kabilaspur, is wholly baseless. The petitioner is a housewife and is a member of the family of Khatyani Raiyat and that the order of termination is wholly without any basis and the same is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of .the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was attending her duty from a different Village-Ramgarh whereas the Para Teacher has to reside in the same village. In view of the above, on the basis of the report of the Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarh, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka by his order contained in Annexure-8 directed to remove the petitioner and similar other persons. Pursuant to the said direction, the order as contained in Annexure-7 has been issued by the Block Education Ex• tension Officer, Ramgarh. 6. In view of the above, on the basis of the report of the Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarh, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka by his order contained in Annexure-8 directed to remove the petitioner and similar other persons. Pursuant to the said direction, the order as contained in Annexure-7 has been issued by the Block Education Ex• tension Officer, Ramgarh. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner does not reside in the Village-Kabilaspur is wholly unfounded. No enquiry was ever made by any authority. No notice was ever served on the petitioner regarding the said allegation. Learned counsel submitted that even in the earlier report of the Block Education Extension Officer, there is no finding that the petitioner has been attending the school from another village. The Block Education Extension Officer has never made any enquiry to that effect. 7. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned S.C.-III, on the other hand, submitted that though there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was given notice or opportunity of hearing, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is based on the enquiry made by the Block Education Extension Officer and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary and vitiated. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials appearing on record. The main ground for challenging the said orders is that before termination of the services of two petitioner, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her. The said point is uncontroverted since there is nothing on record to show that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination. 9. On perusal of the record, it appears that there had been no enquiry regarding the allegation that the petitioner does not reside in her village. The report of the Block Education Extension Officer, on the basis of which, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have acted, does not also show that he had made an enquiry and found that the petitioner was not residing in the said village. Vague statements regarding the said allegation have been made in the report that other teachers also are attending the school from Ramgarh. 10. Vague statements regarding the said allegation have been made in the report that other teachers also are attending the school from Ramgarh. 10. I, therefore, find that there is no legal basis to support the finding that the petitioner is not residing in the said village and she has been attending the school from Village-Ramgarh. Further, the said order is also vitiated on account of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice as before passing the order of termination, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. On that ground also the impugned orders cannot sustain. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-7 & 8, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits.