Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 727 (JHR)

Purnima Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Judgment This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2004 and the consequent order dated 19.02.2005 issued by the respondent no. 6 whereby the salary of the petitioner has been stopped and for a further prayer for releasing the salary of the petitioner. Subsequently, I. A. No. 1836 of 2009 was filed for bringing on record the order of termination of the petitioner from service and by order dated 5.1.2010, the said application has been allowed by this Court, and thus the order of termination dated 20.10.2005 is also under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner completed her B.A. (Hons.) course in the year 1989 from the Ranchi University and thereafter, she completed her Siksha Visharad (Teachers Training) course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The mark-sheet for the said degree was issued on 13.5.1995 and the certificate for the same was issued on 12.08.1996. Pursuant to an advertisement published on 21.7.1998 for appointment on the post of English Teacher (lady), the petitioner applied on 25.7.1998 and she was appointed by communication dated 15.09.1998. Further, by letter dated 22.9.1998, the petitioner was communicated that her appointment on the post of English Teacher would be w.e.f. 06.10.1998. The managing committee of D.B.M.S. Girls High School, Jamshedpur by resolution dated 28.08.1998 approved the appointment of the petitioner on the post of English Teacher w.e.f. 06.10.1998 and District Education Officer by letter dated 3.12.1998 forwarded the order of appointment of the petitioner on the post of English Teacher with all necessary documents to the Secretary, Vidyalaya Seva Board, Patna, for approval. Subsequently, the Vidyalaya Seva Board, Patna required some more documents before according approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of English Teacher. The Secretary, Vidyalaya Seva Board issued a direction to the respondent no. 6 by letter dated 22.2.2000 directing him to submit the documents relating to recognition of the degree/course of Siksha Visharad. Annexing the letter dated 07.05.2000 of Respondent No. 7, the Respondent No. 6 informed that the degree of Siksha Visharad granted to the petitioner has already been recognised by the C.B.S.E., New Delhi and he forwarded all the necessary documents to the Vidyalaya Seva Board, Patna. Annexing the letter dated 07.05.2000 of Respondent No. 7, the Respondent No. 6 informed that the degree of Siksha Visharad granted to the petitioner has already been recognised by the C.B.S.E., New Delhi and he forwarded all the necessary documents to the Vidyalaya Seva Board, Patna. The Respondent No. 2 – Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi issued Resolution dated 12.06.2002 whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of English Teacher in D.B.M.S. Girls High School, Kadama, Jamshedpur was approved with effect from 06.10.1998. Thereafter, the pay-scale of the petitioner was approved by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education by letter dated 30.12.2002. It appears that thereafter, by communication dated 27.03.2004, the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of H. R. D., Jharkhand, Ranchi communicated the Deputy Commissioner, District Superintendent of Education and Regional Deputy Director Education that the Teachers Training certificate obtained from certain institutes including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not recognised, and therefore, no appointment should be made on the post of the Primary Teacher on the basis of those certificates. In pursuance of the said communication by letter dated 28.10.2004, the Respondent No. 3 directed the District Education Officer to stop payment of salary to all those teachers who had obtained a degree from one of those institutes. Consequently, without giving any notice to the petitioner, her salary was stopped. In these facts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and as noticed above, the service of the petitioner was terminated on 20.10.2005, and therefore, an interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ petition which was allowed by order dated 05.01.2010. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 in which a stand has been taken that the school in which the petitioner has been appointed is a minority school. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on the basis of Siksha Visharad degree awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad; a degree which is not recognised for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. It has also been stated that the managing committee of the school has illegally appointed the petitioner and inadvertently the concurrence of the appointment of the petitioner was given by the Education Department. On these grounds, the claim of the petitioner is sought to be denied by respondents. 4. It has also been stated that the managing committee of the school has illegally appointed the petitioner and inadvertently the concurrence of the appointment of the petitioner was given by the Education Department. On these grounds, the claim of the petitioner is sought to be denied by respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order by which the salary of the petitioner was stopped and the direction by the respondent-State to the managing committee of all the schools pursuant to which the salary of the petitioner was stopped are illegal and without jurisdiction. The salary of the petitioner was stopped without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner. He has further contended that the petitioner was appointed in the year, 1998 itself and the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2002 came into operation thereafter and therefore, the qualification which has been prescribed in the year, 2002 cannot be made retrospective and applied in the case of the petitioner. In any case the provisions made under the NCTE Act, 1993 would be made applicable only after the academic session 199596 and admittedly, the petitioner has obtained her degree in the year 1995 itself and thus, the petitioner has a valid degree in so far as the qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher is concerned. He has further submitted that the impugned order dated 27.03.2004 whereby a direction was issued by the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of H. R. D., Jharkhand, Ranchi not to make appointment on the basis of the degree issued by certain institutes including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, is not an order for cancelling the appointments made earlier. At best, this direction can be construed as an order directing the authorities not to make any further appointment on the basis of a degree/certificate issued by those institutes and the appointments made earlier cannot be nullified. 5. Per contra, Mr. At best, this direction can be construed as an order directing the authorities not to make any further appointment on the basis of a degree/certificate issued by those institutes and the appointments made earlier cannot be nullified. 5. Per contra, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned S. C. III appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1998 and in the meantime, the Act of 2002 had come in force which requires a degree from a recognised institute which admittedly the petitioner is not possessing, therefore, it would not be possible for the State Government to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the year, 2013. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in “ 2005 (2) JCR 293 ”. 6. A perusal of the documents on record clearly indicates that the order of appointment of the petitioner on the post of English Teacher was already approved by a Notification issued by the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of H.R.D., Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner was appointed in the year, 1998 and the respondent no. 2 issued the Notification granting approval in the year 2002. It appears that by Notification dated 27.12.2001 issued by the Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, a Committee was constituted and pursuant to the recommendation of the said Committee, the State Government took a decision to approve the appointment made by the Managing Committee of the schools. The decision of the Government was issued vide Notification dated 12.06.2002. Now, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Committee constituted vide Notification dated 27.12.2001 and thereafter, by the State Government. By an executive order/direction issued by the successor Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, the appointment which was approved by the Government cannot be cancelled. It is also an admitted position that before the impugned order dated 19.02.2005 was passed, no notice was given to the petitioner and the direction issued by the Director, Primary Education on 28.10.2004 is not the decision of the Government and therefore, on that count alone, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. I find that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 and since then more than 15 years have been passed. 7. I find that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 and since then more than 15 years have been passed. After 7 years her appointment has been cancelled which was approved by the Government vide Notification issued by the Secretary of the department. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in case of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 28.10.2004, 19.02.2005 and 20.10.2005 are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of English Teacher from the date on which the order of termination was passed. All the arrears of salary would also be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.