Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 386 (JHR)

Kalpana Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-12

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 674 of 2005 whereby the writ petitioner/respondent no. 6 herein was directed to be issued appointment letter, if already not issued and be allowed to work as para teacher and shall be paid salary in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by learned counsel for the appellant are that, theState of Jharkhand issued an advertisement inviting applications from the persons, specially the female candidates of the villages, who have minimum qualification of Intermediate to be appointed as “Shiksha Mitra/Sahyogi Shikshika (para teacher)” under a scheme for imparting education to the students in the Centre, where more than 60 students are studying. It is further stated that as per the minutes of the meeting held on 11.01.2003 in village Bela, in which several persons were present, the appellant was asked to teach the students of the said village in terms of the scheme known as Shiksha Mitra and in terms of the decision taken in general meeting the appellant was appointed for which a letter of appointment vide letter no. 52 of 07.07.2003 has been issued by the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 6 herein claimed that she possessed the basic requirement to the post as provided under the scheme. Alleging that the State-respondents acted in violation of the guidelines for the appointment and that her case was not considered for appointment, the respondent no. 6 herein filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 674 of 2005. Referring the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the respondent no. 6 herein be issued the appointment letter if not already issued and that she may be allowed to work as para teacher and shall be paid salary in accordance with law. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant (respondent no. 6 in the writ petitioner) filed the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Verma for the State and Mr. Alok Lal for respondent no. 6 herein. 5. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant (respondent no. 6 in the writ petitioner) filed the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Verma for the State and Mr. Alok Lal for respondent no. 6 herein. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge has taken note of enquiry report dated 17.07.2012 which was conducted in the matter and it was found that the appointment of respondent no. 6 namely, Kalpana Kumari was illegal. Pursuant to the order of learned Single Judge an order was passed on 15.10.2012 by District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, whereby it was ordered that the 6th respondent, namely, Sumitra Devi (writ petitioner) would continue to work and salary would be paid to her. It has also been held that the respondent no. 6 in the writ proceeding, namely, Ms. Kalpana Kumari (appellant herein) was illegally appointed and her appointment was accordingly cancelled. The said order has not been challenged by the appellant rather the appellant has approached this Court by challenging the order dated 24.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 674 of 2005. 6. We find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the appellant to challenge order dated 15.10.2013, if so advised. 7. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that because of some alleged hindrance caused by the appellant school is running in veranda and in this regard, the news has already been reported in the local newspaper. If that be so, we direct the State-respondent to take appropriate steps to ensure proper functioning of the school.