Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 939 (JHR)

Sita Ram Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-05

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Para-Teacher' and admittedly, at that time, petitioner was not having the requisite educational qualification i.e. certificate of Intermediate. On 24.05.2008, an order was passed by the authorities that the persons who have been given appointment and who have no requisite educational qualification, their services may be terminated. In the said order, the names of 12 persons are given. On 01.11.2008, it was conveyed that the persons who have already been removed from service or whose honorarium has been stopped, if they enhance their educational qualification by 30.06.2008, then they may be retained and rest persons be removed. The petitioner, before the cut off date of 30.06.2008, in the month of May, 2007, obtained the certificate of Madhyma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and according to the petitioner, he should have been taken back in the service as he is falling in the category of persons who are covered by the order of the competent authority dated 01.11.2008. 3. This court, on 2nd April, 2012 directed the State to show whether any person has been retained in service who acquired requisite educational qualification by 30.06.2008. In response to this order, respondents have filed their reply admitting that the name of one person Sri Jai Prakash was in the list (annexure-3) dated 24.05.2008, who enhanced his educational qualification and he is in service. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner had no requisite educational qualification and he obtained the requisite educational qualification only in the year 2007. The petitioner's service, since was terminated before 24.05.2008, therefore, the petitioner cannot get the benefits of the order dated 01.11.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner since was not in service when the order dated 01.11.2008 was issued, therefore, he is not entitled to be retained in service. 6. The stand of the respondent is contrary to the order dated 01.11.2008 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the persons, who have enhanced their educational qualification by June, 2008 and whose services have already been terminated, even those persons may be taken back in the service. 6. The stand of the respondent is contrary to the order dated 01.11.2008 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the persons, who have enhanced their educational qualification by June, 2008 and whose services have already been terminated, even those persons may be taken back in the service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that petitioner should have been taken back in the service provided, his educational qualification is as per prescribed qualification of the respondent authorities. 7. Another ground taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has obtained the certificate of Intermediate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, whose degree has not been recognized by the State. 8. The State has placed on record the order dated 27.3.2004. A bare perusal of the order will show that this order relates to only for Teachers' Training Courses and not to other courses. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant is fully justified in submitting that only Teachers' Training Degree Course is governed by the recognition of National Council For Teachers' Education (N.C.T.E.) and for certificate of Intermediate course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, there is no need for recognition by NCTE . 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant further submitted that even Jharkhand Academic Council vide its letter dated 28.08.2010 clearly conveyed that the degree of Madhyma given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent degree to the Intermediate as well as (+ 2) course. 11. In view of the above reasons, the stand of the State cannot be justified on this ground also. Hence, this L.P.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 is set aside. The writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in service without any delay after verification of his certificate.