Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 124 (JHR)

Bandana Rui Das v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner herein seeks direction upon the respondents to pay the Honorarium to her for the duty she claims to have discharged as Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Dhobna, since 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 and thereafter from 1.4.2013 till date. According to the petitioner she was selected by the Gram Sabha i.e. Village Education Committee, Dhobna, Disrict Jamtara on 5.1.2007 for the post of Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School at Dhobna. On 15.2.2007 her name was said to have been recommended by the Block Education Committee for the post of Para Teacher in the same school. As per the petitioner on 1.4.2007 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Village Education Committee in relation to her engagement as Para Teacher in the said school. Though the funds have been transferred by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jamtara vide letter no. 391 dated 29.4.2008 addressed to the President/Secretary of the Village Education Committee for salary of Para Teacher for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 at the rate of Rs. 2500 per month, however the same has not been released. According to the petitioner the attendance register would show that she has been working from 1.4.2007 as Para Teacher. She has also filed representation in this regard. As her representation remained unredressed, therefore she has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. 3. Respondents have, however contested the claim of the petitioner. It is stated on their behalf that petitioner was never selected by the Village Education Committee for the post of Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Dhubna. The process of selection comprised two parts; first being the recommendation of the concerned Village Education Committee duly convened and secondly approval of the concerned Block Education Committee. The aforesaid irregularity in the selection process of the petitioner having been noticed, show case was issued upon all the concerned as to how petitioner was paid illegally, though she was not selected by the Village Education Committee and the petitioner was asked to submit documents to substantiate that her selection is in accordance with law. It has been stated that the Block Programme Officer, Nala vide letter dated 5.3.2013 fairly conceded on the basis of absentee report signed by the Secretary of the said school and one Sankool Sadhan Sevi that petitioner is being paid honorarium. It has been stated that the Block Programme Officer, Nala vide letter dated 5.3.2013 fairly conceded on the basis of absentee report signed by the Secretary of the said school and one Sankool Sadhan Sevi that petitioner is being paid honorarium. The Secretary of the said school further clarified that petitioner was not selected by the Village Education Committee rather the Block Education Officer, Nala forcibly took his signature on contract paper which was valid for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. Thereafter, he made first payment to the petitioner pursuant to the direction of Block Education Officer, Nala contained in memo no. 552 dated 2.8.2008 and resolution dated 3.7.2008 of Block Education Committee, Nala. The letter dated 5.3.2013 of the Block Programme Officer, Nala and the Secretary are enclosed as Annexure C and C/1 to the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the petitioner's engagement as Para Teacher has been done without adhering to the process of selection w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and, therefore, petitioner was receiving honorarium illegally. Since, petitioner was never engaged as Para Teacher for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008., therefore, no payment can be made for the said period. 4. Petitioner in the rejoinder has annexed the minutes of the meeting no.7 dated 15.2.2007 of the Block Education Committee as Annexure-7 as per which at the end her name has been shown in respect of the last resolution as having been approved as Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Dhobna. Annexure-7/1 is said to be the agreement executed by the petitioner with the Secretary and President of the Village Education Committee. Petitioner claims these to be the basis of her appointment as Para Teacher in the said school, which is said to be countersigned by the Block Education Officer, Nala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the period from April 2008 till March 2013, the petitioner has already been paid the honorarium by the respondents. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant records. As indicated herein above, on being asked, the petitioner has shown the minutes of the 7th meeting of the Village Education Committee annexed as Annexure-7 and the agreement entered into between her and the Village Education Committee, which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the rejoinder claiming the appointment order / agreement under which she has been engaged as Para Teacher. As indicated herein above, on being asked, the petitioner has shown the minutes of the 7th meeting of the Village Education Committee annexed as Annexure-7 and the agreement entered into between her and the Village Education Committee, which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the rejoinder claiming the appointment order / agreement under which she has been engaged as Para Teacher. Petitioner, however has not been able to show any resolution of the Village Education Committee in which her name was recommended for appointment as Para Teacher which has been said to be subsequently approved by the Block Education Committee. A perusal of Annexure-7 said to be minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Village Education Committee held on 15.2.2007 indicates that no resolution number is present so far as the decision regarding approval of the petitioner's appointment in the Upgraded Primary School, Dhubna for the post of Para Teacher by the said Block Education Committee is concerned. The agreement said to be relied upon by the petitioner as the basis for her engagement as Para Teacher also does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the respondents have categorically asserted that there was no proper selection and recommendation of the Village Education Committee for the petitioner for the post of Para Teacher in the said school. 6. In the aforesaid disputed state of affairs, the claim of the petitioner for seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of honorarium for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 and subsequently from 1.4.2013 till date does not appear to be sustainable in the absence of cogent and credible documents to establish the case that she was duly appointed as Para Teacher in the said school. It is trite to say that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in such disputed state of facts, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, petitioner having failed to make out a case in her favour, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.