Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Bandana Rui Das v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-21

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order Aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 20 of 2013, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, initially in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha held on 19.11.2006, one Nilkanth Haldar was selected for being appointed on the post of Para Teacher. Some complaints were made and, therefore, a direction was issued and again meeting of Aam Sabha was convened on 05.01.2007 in which also the said Nilkanth Haldar was selected and his selection was approved by the Village Education Committee. In the meeting of Block Education Committee held on 15.02.2007 the name of the appellant was recommended and her name finds place at Sl. No. 5 of minutes of meeting dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure-9). Thereafter the appellant continued to work on the post of Para Teacher. However, since she was not paid salary between the period 01.04.2007 and 31.03.2008, the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition. 3. In the writ proceeding a counter affidavit was filed raising a plea that since the appellant was not validly appointed, she could not have been paid honorarium between the period 01.04.2007 and 31.03.2008. It was further stated that show cause notices were issued to other officials for making payment to the appellant who was illegally appointed on the post of Para Teacher. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though a female candidate is to be given preference for the post of Para Teacher, one Nilkanth Haldar was illegally selected in the meeting of the Aam Sabha. On verification of the facts the Block Education Committee decided to select the appellant and thereafter the appellant continued to work and thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was not validly appointed on the post of Para Teacher. It is further submitted that the appellant continues to work even today and she was paid salary till March, 2013 when she approached this Court by filing the writ petition. It is thus submitted that only after the writ petition was filed by the appellant, the authorities have arbitrarily stopped the salary of the appellant and refused to pay honorarium between the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and also after April, 2013. 6. Mr. It is thus submitted that only after the writ petition was filed by the appellant, the authorities have arbitrarily stopped the salary of the appellant and refused to pay honorarium between the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and also after April, 2013. 6. Mr. Sumir Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State of Jharkhand submits that since the appellant was not selected by the Aam Sabha and also by the Village Education Committee, she has rightly not been paid honorarium between the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. 7. From the materials on record it is clear that the appellant continued to work after her selection on 1st of April, 2007 and it has been stated by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant still continues to work. It is also a matter of record that after April, 2008 till March, 2013 the appellant was paid honorarium. According to the appellant, as per the Government guidelines of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and as per the guidelines for the selection of Para Teacher, the local candidate where the school is situated will have to be taken first and secondly, if the female candidate is available, she shall be selected and only if the female candidate is not available, male candidate can be selected. The case of the appellant is that such guidelines of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan was not kept in view by the Village Education Committee. Since a dispute has been raised by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, in so far as the validity of the appointment of the appellant on the post of Para Teacher is concerned, we feel it appropriate that the matter be heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara – Respondent No.2. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 20.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 20 of 2013 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara - Respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh and after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant, pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a reasonable period both in respect of the appointment of the appellant as well as her claim regarding payment of salary for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. The L.P.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms.