Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1588 (JHR)

Jageshwar Mahto v. Sate of Jharkhand

2012-11-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Judgment Both writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners, in the above writ petitions, have come before this Court being aggrieved by the up gradation of Middle School, Halmat, Silli, Ranchi and Middle School, Goradih, Silli, Ranchi into High School as they are apprehending that it will adversely affect already existing Rameshanand High School, Hakedag, Silli, Ranchi and Parvatiya Durgam High School, Goradih, Silli, Ranchi respectively, which are having approval in the year 1987 by the order issued by the Director Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, which are annexed as Annexure-1 to the both the writ petitions. Petitioners have enclosed the report of the District Education Officer, Ranchi, which is Annexure-4 and 5, dated 08.02.2007 and 03.01.2007 respectively in both writ petitions wherein it is submitted that the District Education Officer has categorically observed that the Government Middle Schools, which are being upgraded, are within 100-150 yards of the High Schools concerned and it appears that there is no reason for such up-gradation of Middle Schools in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on letter dated 24.01.2007 issued by the Director Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to all District Education Officers in respect of upgradation of 329 Middle Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at Sub-clause-(1) to Clause-(2) of the said letter, it has been indicated that where approved High Schools are present from before then the Middle Schools in the vicinity shall not be upgraded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit in the second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2007 in which it has been stated against the contention of the respondents that there are not four Middle Schools, in fact there is only one Middle School. 5. The respondents have entered their appearance and filed their counter affidavit respectively in both the cases and stated in their affidavits that due to implementation of Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan, the number of students studying in Primary and Middle Schools have increased unexpectedly and the Government has taken decision to upgrade the Middle Schools into High Schools in different phase and these two middle schools in question have been upgraded in the first phase in the year 2006 vide letter no. 1989 dated 15.09.2006 before issuance of the Memo No. 295 dated 24.01.2007, which cannot be made retrospectively applicable. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the schools after upgradation are functional. In the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6304 of 2007 in the counter affidavit at para-11, it has also been stated that plea of the petitioner that Rameshanand High School, Hakedag, Silli, Ranchi will be closed and teachers will be unemployed is not acceptable at this point of time when the number of schools is still less than requirement. Moreover, in the second writ petition, the respondents through their counter affidavit stated that in the four Middle Schools numbers of students are more than 1000 and therefore, in the interest of rest students, the decision has been taken to upgrade Middle School, Goradih, Silli, Ranchi into High School. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. From the stand taken by the respondents, it appears that Middle Schools have been upgraded as a matter of fact by the policy decision by the State and have already been made functional. It further appears that respondents through their stand taken in their counter affidavit have chosen to allay the fears of the petitioners that the schools would be closed and teachers would be unemployed in view of the fact that more number of schools are still required. 7. In these facts and circumstances, it appears that, the apprehension of the petitioner at the moment is misconceived. However, while refusing to interfere with the matter at this stage, petitioners are allowed liberty to approach the appropriate forum in future if any fresh cause of action arises. 8. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. Petition disposed of.