Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 322 (JHR)

Anirudha Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-03

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in W.P(S) No.2808 of 2006, in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the initial appointment of the appellant has already been cancelled by the competent authority (vide order dated 3.09.2004) and therefore, no direction could be issued to the respondents to accord approval on the appointment of the appellant as Matric Trained Teacher. 2. The appellant had applied for the post of Matric Trained Teacher, pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.1.1997 in St. Teressa Valika Madhya Vidhayalaya, Dudhani, Dumka and the requisite qualification for the post of Matric Trained Teacher was graduate with B.Ed degree. The appellant was appointed as a Matric Trained Teacher vide order dated 25.4.1997. The approval was sought from the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, who had granted conditional/temporary approval, vide order dated 31.7.1997. 3. Bill of salary of the appellant was sent to the District Superintendent of Education but the District Superintendent of Education had not granted approval of the appellant’s appointment and salary was not paid to the appellant. Since no permanent approval was being granted on the appointment of the appellant and the salary of the appellant was not being paid to him, earlier the appellant had filed writ being CWJC No.9748 of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 19.12.2003, with a direction to the appellant to file a fresh representation before the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand and further with a direction to the Director to pass a speaking order thereon. In pursuance of the order passed, the Director, Primary Education had passed the order dated 11.8.2004 rejecting the representation of the appellant stating that the appellant had obtained B.Ed. degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, which is a fictitious institution and the degree so obtained by the appellant cannot be verified and the same has not been recognized and therefore, the appellant has no requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Matric Trained Teacher and hence, he should not have been appointed. The appointment of the appellant has been cancelled by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, vide order dated 3.9.2004. Challenging the order dated 11.8.2004, the appellant filed W.P (S) No.2808/2006. The appointment of the appellant has been cancelled by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, vide order dated 3.9.2004. Challenging the order dated 11.8.2004, the appellant filed W.P (S) No.2808/2006. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the initial appointment of the appellant has already been cancelled by the order dated 3.9.2004 and that has not been challenged by the appellant and while so, no direction could be issued to the respondent to grant approval on the appointment of the appellant and to pay him salary. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that N.C.T.E came into existence on 1.7.1995 whereas the appellant has obtained the B.Ed degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur even in the year 1991 and, therefore, non-obtaining of approval from N.C.T.E (which came into existence on 1.7.1995) by the said Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur cannot be a ground for holding the degree obtained by the appellant as not valid. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that order dated 3.09.2004 cancelling the appointment of the appellant by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka was communicated to the School Management and the copy of the same was not communicated to the appellant and while so, the learned Single Judge was not right in observing that the order dated 3.9.2004 has not been challenged by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in respect of a similarly situated person, who also obtained B.Ed degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, in W.P.(S) No. 5959 of 2005 the Hon'ble Single Judge vide order dated 18.11.2009 has directed the authorities to grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, the appellant prays for allowing of the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C to Advocate General, appearing for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is a fictitious institution and after verifying the same the Director, Primary Education refused to accord approval to the appointment of the appellant as Matric Trained Teacher and the appointment of the appellant has also been cancelled, vide order dated 3.9.2004, by the District Superintendent of Education and the same has not been challenged and thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 7. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. After direction of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 9748 of 2000 dated 19th December, 2003, the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand considered the case of the appellant and verified the certificates and also the B.Ed degree of the appellant, which the appellant obtained from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur. On verification, the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand vide order dated 11.08.2004 rejected the representation of the appellant observing that the appellant has obtained the B.Ed degree from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is a fictitious institution and the degree so granted to the appellant by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur has not been recognized by the State of Jharkhand. Since the appellant has no requisite qualification for being appointed, vide order dated 11.08.2004, the Director, Primary Education declined to accord approval on the appointment as a Matric Trained Teacher. When the appellant has no requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Matric Trained Teacher, the appellant cannot seek for direction to the authorities to grant approval of his appointment. It is also pertinent to point out that by order dated 3.9.2004, the appointment of the appellant itself has been cancelled by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, which has not been challenged by the appellant and hence order dated 3.9.2004 has attained finality. 9. It is not the case of the respondents that the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur has not obtained the approval of N.C.T.E. But according to the respondents, the said institute, Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, is a fictitious institution and, therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant that N.C.T.E came into existence w.e.f. 1.7.1995 whereas the appellant obtained the degree in 1991, cannot be countenanced. Whether the institution, Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, is a fictitious institution or genuine is not an issue before us. 10. Whether the institution, Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, is a fictitious institution or genuine is not an issue before us. 10. In so far as the contention of the appellant that in case of similarly situated person (in W.P.(S) No. 5959 of 2005) the approval was granted for appointment in respect of a similarly situated persons in W.P.(S) No. 5959 of 2005 vide order dated 18.11.2009, by perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5959 of 2005 dated 18.11.2009, we find that the issue whether Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was a genuine institution or a fictitious was not an issue before the learned Single Judge in that case. In such view of the matter, the said decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances in this case. 11. In Writ Petition No. 5496 (S/S) of 2003, it is mentioned that the institute-Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur has been granted approval with effect from 2000 whereas in the present case it is a proposition that the appellant obtained B.Ed degree in the year 1991 and, therefore, that is of no help to the appellant. 12. Learned Single Judge pointing out that after verification, the Director Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi has refused to accord approval to the appointment of petitioner as matric trained teacher and the cancellation of appointment of the appellant (Vide order dated 3.9.2004 by the District Superintendent of Education) has not been challenged by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no merit warranting interference in the impugned order. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.