Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 820 (JHR)

Hemant Kumar Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. There are 6 petitioners herein, all of whom are said to have been recommended for appointment as Para Teacher in Up-Graded Middle School, Bankudih, P.S. Narayanpur, Dist. Jamtara by a decision of the Village Education Committee dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure-2). The Village Education Committee authorized the District Education Committee to take a decision in accordance with the Rules in respect of the selection of the interested candidates as there were more number of candidates than the vacancies existed against the said school for the post of Para Teacher. By Annexure-4, letter no. 142 dated 28.2.2008, Block Education Extension Officer, Narayanpur recommended the names of the these petitioners for appointment as Para Teacher pursuant to a meeting of the Block Education Committee held on 16.1.2008. Petitioners are said to have worked in the said school from 28.2.2008 till were finally disengaged on 29.10.2012 pursuant to the impugned order dated 28.7.2012 and 13.9.2012 issued by the District Co-ordination Committee, Jharkhand Education Project, Jamtara. 3. Earlier petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 3663 of 2011 as they were not being paid the Honorarium. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to take a decision on their representations. 4. Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a plea that these petitioners and several others were engaged in an illegal manner as the Jharkhand State Education Project Council had unanimously taken a decision that no Para Teacher be engaged pursuance to the alleged vacancy computed on the basis of 1:40 teacher student ratio with immediate effect vide letter dated 10/11.9.2007 which was binding upon all the District Education Project Council. They have stated that the selection of the petitioners was not done in accordance with the laid down procedure as it was done bypassing the decision of the State Council. The Village Education Committee and Block Education Committee are not competent authority to approve the selection of any person as Para Teacher against Zero vacancy. Therefore, inquiries were made from different Subordinate Authorities and it was found that the Block Education Extension Officer, Narayanpur and Village Education Committee has exceeded their jurisdiction by making such appointment. The petitioners, therefore, cannot derive advantage from the illegal / void appointment. 5. According to the petitioners, earlier the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara by Annexure-7, letter dated 24.3. Therefore, inquiries were made from different Subordinate Authorities and it was found that the Block Education Extension Officer, Narayanpur and Village Education Committee has exceeded their jurisdiction by making such appointment. The petitioners, therefore, cannot derive advantage from the illegal / void appointment. 5. According to the petitioners, earlier the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara by Annexure-7, letter dated 24.3. 2012 had directed Block Education Extension Officer, Narayanpur to make payment of the Honorarium of such persons in pursuance of the directions passed in W.P.S. 3663 of 2011. Therefore, according to the petitioners the respondents are not at all justified in terminating their engagement in such an arbitrary manner without any notice or show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.S. No. 3122 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013 in order to submit that if the petitioners have been allowed to discharge their duties consciously, the respondents are not entitled in refusing the salary for the period they have worked. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relevant materials on record, it appears that the engagement of the petitioners were done in teeth of the decision of the Jharkhand Education Project Council dated 10/11.9.2007. Petitioners, however, were allowed to work from February 2008 till they were disengaged in October, 2012 pursuant to another resolution of the Village Education Committee dated 29.10.2012, Annexure-9 keeping into light the directions issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara. Reference has been made to the letter dated 17.9.2012 in the said minutes under which the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara had directed the concerned committee to disengage the services of the petitioners. The Selection of the petitioners, therefore, appears to be done de-hors the procedures and in teeth of the specific decision of the State Council under which no vacancy could have been computed on the teachers student ratio of 1:40. Therefore, no fault on such ground can be made in the decision of the respondents and the Village Education Committee to disengage these petitioners. 7. However, if the petitioners have been allowed to discharge their dues till 29.10.2012 as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, then they are entitled for grant of honorarium for the period in question. Therefore, no fault on such ground can be made in the decision of the respondents and the Village Education Committee to disengage these petitioners. 7. However, if the petitioners have been allowed to discharge their dues till 29.10.2012 as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, then they are entitled for grant of honorarium for the period in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that honorarium is due for the period from 24.5.2010 till 29.10.2012. 8. In that view of the matter, the respondents should release the admissible honorarium in favour of the individual petitioners, of course subject to verification that petitioners have discharged their duties as Para Teacher in the school in question. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.