Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 412 (JHR)

Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services on the sanctioned vacant post of Assistant Teacher in Project Girls High School, Chauparan have not been regularized/recognized by the respondent- State acting upon the erroneous report of the 3 men Alam Committee constituted by it in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No 6626-6675 of 2001 decided in 2006. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by the duly constituted managing committee in the said school on 17.3.1985 and he submitted his joining on 18.3.1985 as per the appointment letter contained at Annexure-1. The school was selected by the Government of Bihar as per the 3 men Committee report in terms of letter no. 142 dated 23.5.1985. He had qualification of B.Sc from Ranchi University at the time of appointment and obtained B.Ed degree in May 1986 from Utkal University, Bhuvaneshwar, photo copies of the academic certificate and B.Ed degree are annexed as Annexure-2 series. It is submitted that the matter relating to recognization of services of teachers working in such Project Girls High Schools went through long series of litigation and finally in view of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid Civil Appeals, both the successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand constituted a 3 men Committee to look into such matters. The matter relating to the petitioner's case was placed before the 3 men Alam Committee constituted by the State Government but the said Committee has not recommended the petitioner's case apparently on the ground that his relevant certificates of teacher's training qualification from the Utkal University were not before the committee when it took the decision. Apart from that the committee also observed that at the time of his appointment, he did not have the teachers training qualification. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments rendered by this Court such as in the case of Sukhdev Gope Vrs. State of Jharkhand in W.P.S. No. 5161 of 2009 and in the case of Arbind Pathak in W.P.S. No. 2048 of 2010 decided with other analogous cases vide judgment dated 4.2.2013 as also in the case of Om Prakash Gope Vrs. State of Jharkhand in W.P.S. No. 5658 of 2009 and other cases as well. Some of the judgments are annexed as Annexure-4 to 6 to the writ petition. State of Jharkhand in W.P.S. No. 5658 of 2009 and other cases as well. Some of the judgments are annexed as Annexure-4 to 6 to the writ petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the aforesaid judgments by referring to the ratio laid down by the full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Project Uchha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vrs. State & others reported in 2000(1) PLJR 287 , para 33 thereof have held that the cut off date of possessing the minimum qualification shall be the date on which report shall be submitted by the Screening Committee. In the wake of aforesaid categorical decision rendered by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals, yardstick which has been laid down for recognization of services of such serving teachers in the selected Project Girls High School, as aforesaid in the said period, is that they ought to have acquired specified qualification of teachers training before the cut off date on which the report was submitted by the Screening Committee. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted his certificates and the mark sheet before the District Education Officer as well as Regional Deputy Director of Education through the Head Master of the school at the time of inspection of the school in the year 1987 which may have not been placed by the concerned R.D.D.E before the Alam Committee, which has led to such findings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these aspects are obviously subject to final verification and if the petitioner has attained the requisite qualification in the year 1986-1987 itself, there is no reason why petitioner's case should be discriminated from all other whose services have also been recognized on the basis of same yardstick adopted in their case. It is further submitted that the compliance order has been issued in respect of such persons in whose favour judgments have been rendered by this Court as aforesaid and they have been paid their consequential benefits of salary etc. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that the grounds for refusing the recommendation of the petitioner's case by the Alam Committee constituted by the State Government was that he was not having teachers training qualification at the time of his appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that the grounds for refusing the recommendation of the petitioner's case by the Alam Committee constituted by the State Government was that he was not having teachers training qualification at the time of his appointment. Moreover, the relevant certificates and mark sheet of such degree(s) were not placed before the Committee at the time of inspection. Therefore, petitioner has not been found possessing the requisite qualification and has been refused regularization in service 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through relevant materials on record. Apparently, the petitioner's claim that he was a graduate and has been appointed in the school as Maths teacher on 17.3.1985 by the Managing Committee of the school, which was taken over pursuant to the 3 men Committee report vide letter dated 23.5.1985 in terms of the Government of Bihar vide letter no. 142 dated 23.2.1985 are not in dispute. Petitioner has made a claim that he had obtained the requisite teachers training qualification in May 1986 itself i.e. B.Ed. Degree from the Utkal University, Bhuvaneshwar. It also appears that at the time when the 3 men Alam Committee was considering the case of the recognization of services of such teaching and non teaching employee of the said school, the relevant certificates of the petitioner relating to teachers training were not before it. Therefore, the 3 men committee proceeded to hold that petitioner was not having teachers training qualification on the cut off date as is required. Further, from the judgment in the case of Sukhdev Gope and other judgments annexed as Annexure-4 to 6 to the writ petition, it is apparent that as per the full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Project Uhcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vrs. State & others reported in 2000(1) PLJR 287 (supra), para 33 there of, yardstick laid down for considering the question of such recognization of services of such teachers was the acquisition of minimum qualification on the cut off date on which the report is submitted by the Screening committee. State & others reported in 2000(1) PLJR 287 (supra), para 33 there of, yardstick laid down for considering the question of such recognization of services of such teachers was the acquisition of minimum qualification on the cut off date on which the report is submitted by the Screening committee. If the petitioner is able to show that he had obtained teachers training qualification much before the report submitted by the Screening Committee, there is no reason why his case would be distinguished from that of other teachers, who have acquired teachers training qualification in the year 1994 in the case of Sukhdev Gope as also in the case of Om Prakash Gope referred to supra and other cases decided by this Court and whose services have also been recognized. 7. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondent no. 3, the Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources , Government of Jharkhand to take a decision in the mater of recognization of the petitioner's services in the Project Girls High School, Chouparan as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Mathematics after due scrutiny and verification of the relevant eligibility conditions and certificate of teachers training qualification of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment along with a representation of the petitioner duly enclosed with relevant certificates and all the supporting facts and documents. 8. Needless to say that if the petitioner's case is found to be covered under the judgments referred to herein above in the case of Sukh Dev Gope and others and that he is found to have attained teachers training qualification before the cut off date on which the report was submitted by the Screening Committee, the respondent No.3, the Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources , Government of Jharkhand would take a final decision in the matter of grant of recognization of the petitioner's services in the said school on the sanctioned vacant post within same period. However, the observation made in the report of 3 men Alam Committee in respect of the petitioner's case shall not come in the way of the respondent No.3, the Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources, Government of Jharkhand in taking appropriate decision as aforesaid. However, the observation made in the report of 3 men Alam Committee in respect of the petitioner's case shall not come in the way of the respondent No.3, the Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources, Government of Jharkhand in taking appropriate decision as aforesaid. Dependent upon the recognization of the petitioner's services, consequential benefits of arrears of salary, current salary etc shall accrue in favour of the petitioner as has been granted to similarly situated persons. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.