Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1114 (JHR)

Pinki Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 10.10.2012 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the 3rd post of Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Banlotwa has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement published in local newspaper 'Hindustan' on 06.11.2008 for appointment of 141 Para Teachers in Upgraded Middle Schools, the petitioner applied and in the meeting held on 10.08.2009, the name of the petitioner for appointment against the 3rd post of Para Teacher was recommended. However, the petitioner was not given any appointment and the petitioner approached this Court in W. P. (S) No. 1559 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 03.04.2012 directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order. The claim of the petitioner has been finally decided by the respondent authority by order dated 10.10.2012. On being dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 10.10.2012. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 stating as under: 8. “That it is humbly stated and submitted that on publication of notice the petitioner had applied for selection of Para Teacher relying upon the 3rd criteria of the notice, the educational qualification of the petitioner is only I.Sc. pass whereas the minimum qualification for selection of 3rd Para Teacher was at least Arts graduate with I.Sc. pass along with English as one of the subject. Surprisingly the petitioner was wrongly selected by the Aam Sabha and his name was recommended to the Block Level Education Committee for approval. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it is not out of place to state here that Block Level Education Committee is the competent forum for approval of selection of Para Teacher. Block Level Education Committee is also competent authority/forum to reject/selection and/or to return back to reconsider the selection of Para Teacher, in case, if selection has not been made as per the norms of the Jharkhand Education Project. Since the educational qualification of the petitioner is only I.Sc. pass i.e. lower eligibility educational qualification her name was not approved by the Block Level Education Committee.” 4. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent no. Since the educational qualification of the petitioner is only I.Sc. pass i.e. lower eligibility educational qualification her name was not approved by the Block Level Education Committee.” 4. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent no. 4 bringing on record an office order dated 14.11.2008 whereby the minimum eligibility of educational qualification for the 3rd post of Para Teacher was amended by incorporating “in absence of a Para Teacher having educational qualification of B.Sc., a person having the qualification of B.A., who has passed the intermediate in Science examination”. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued on 06.11.2008 for appointment on the 3rd post of Para Teacher, possessed the requisites qualification and she was duly selected on 10.08.2009, however, only to deny appointment to the petitioner an antedated corrigendum was issued substituting the educational qualification as noticed above. He further submits that such a procedure adopted by the respondents cannot sustain the scrutiny in law. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the stand taken by the respondent no. 4 has submitted that since the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the 3rd post of Para-Teacher was subsequently amended and as the petitioner does not possess such qualification, she was not given appointment on the 3rd post of Para Teacher. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find that an advertisement was issued on 6th November, 2008 in the local newspaper specifying the educational qualification, which the petitioner admittedly possesses. By an alleged office order issued on 14.11.2008, which is a hand written notice, the educational qualification which was initially prescribed for appointment on the 3rd post of Para Teacher has sought to be amended by the respondent-authority (District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi). I further find that the educational qualification which has sought to be substituted, is absurd and it would be, if not impossible, certainly difficult to find such a candidate, as the qualification which has been prescribed in the alleged corrigendum dated 14.11.2008 is – “graduation in Arts who have completed intermediate in Science.” The qualification prescribed by the District Education Superintendent reflects complete non-application of mind and it smacks of mala fide in law. It has not been brought on record whether this corrigendum was approved by the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, State of Jharkhand or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that such corrigendum was published in the newspaper in the year, 2009. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner possesses the qualification which was advertised on 08.11.2008 and she was unanimously selected by the Gram Sabha also. The alleged notice dated 14.11.2008 cannot be treated as a corrigendum and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 10. In view of the fact that only a hand written notice dated 14.11.2008 has been brought on record substituting the essential educational qualification for the appointment on the 3rd post of Para Teacher, I hereby direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development to assign an officer in the rank of Director to conduct an inquiry in the matter for taking appropriate action, if necessary permission was not taken by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, before issuing handwritten notice dated 14.11.2008 and the alleged advertisement whereby the essential educational qualification has been changed. 11. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction. Petition disposed of.