Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 195 (JHR)

Rajesh Lakra v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-06

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER By the Court.--Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Perused the papers. 2. The petitioner by way of present writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of the petitioner which is illegally withheld from May, 1997 to till date. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the year 1993 and accordingly, he joined the service with effect from 21.1.1993. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is rendering his service as an Assistant teacher. he has been denied salary of Assistant teacher since 1997 on the ground that his appointment was not approved by the State Government as he was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post in question i.e. requisite training which is required for the said post. The petitioner was treated as untrained teacher. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5639 of 2004 on 28.3.2007 wherein in similar facts and situation this Court gave necessary direction to the State Government to the extent that the petitioners are entitle to the benefit of pay scale applicable to the untrained teacher which was revised from time to time till he gets training. The management of the school was directed to see that the petitioner gets training from an institution recognized by the Government of Jharkhand as early as possible. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited the attention to the Rule 4 of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rules. 1993. While referring the said Rule 4 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case or the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the provision contained in Rule 4 of the said Rules. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State referred to and relied upon paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and submitted that no appointment of untrained teachers has been made in any of the Government or Government Aided Schools after creation of new State of Jharkhand. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State referred to and relied upon paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and submitted that no appointment of untrained teachers has been made in any of the Government or Government Aided Schools after creation of new State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that even at the time of appointment of the petitioner, Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 specifically provided that appointment of teachers should be made in accordance with service rules and training was an essential ingredient for such appointment. It is further submitted that letter No. 116 dated 5.3.1991 is only an administrative instruction by which necessity of training was replaced by service teachers training and this administrative instruction cannot be override the provisions of training, which has been provided by the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, as such the prayer and claim of the petitioner is not tenable and petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the State has referred to and relied upon the paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and submitted that National Counsel of Teachers Education, New Delhi has clearly provided in its Regulation No. 2001 that no teacher will be appointed in any Government or Government Aided Schools, who is untrained and, therefore, after coming of the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 and Regulation, 2001, which is framed under an Act of parliament, the force of letter No. 116 dated 5.3.1991 is lost and thereafter training became mandatory and essential qualification for appointment and continuing as a teacher in any Government or Government aided school. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1993 but his appointment was not approved by the State Government as he, according to the State, was not possessing requisite qualification of a trained teacher and therefore, he was denied the salary though he was rendering his service as an Assistant Teacher since 1993. 7. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 5639 of 2004 dated 28.3.2007 it appears that in the case of Md. 7. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 5639 of 2004 dated 28.3.2007 it appears that in the case of Md. Abu Sama Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., this Court in similar situation held:- "petitioner's claim that he got training from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata cannot be accepted. Consequently, it has to be held that petitioner continues to be an untrained teacher and he will be entitled to the applicable pay scale of untrained teacher revised from time to time, till he gets training. However, the management of the school (respondent No.5) should see that petitioner gets training front an institution recognized by Government of Jharkhand as early as possible." 8. It appears that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of tile case of the petitioner in W.P(S) No. 5639 of 2004. So far as the stand taken by the respondent No. 5 in paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit with regard to introduction of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 and Regulation, 2001 which was framed under an Act of Parliament, it appears that similar position was also prevailing when the aforesaid order came to be passed in W.P(S) No. 5639 of 2004. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the respondent No.3, Director Secondary Education. Human Resources Development Department in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.5639 of 2004, Md. Abu Sama Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., on 28.3.2007 and also in the light of Rule-4 of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rule, 1983. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation incorporating his claim along with a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5639 of 2004 and also relevant, Rule of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rules, 1983 within two weeks from the date of this order and upon receipt of such representation the respondent No.3 shall consider the same and take a decision within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.