Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 84 (JHR)

Bimla Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-15

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to approve the proposition statement and for payment of current salary and arrears of salary. During the pendency of this writ petition order dated 27.12.2011, has been passed which was impugned by the petitioner by filing an application being I.A. No. 6929 of 2011 which has been allowed by order dated 18.10.2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Government recognised minority school way back in the year, 1993 itself and the petitioner was paid salary upto the year, 2010, the proposition statement of the petitioner was not approved and finally it has been rejected by order dated 27.12.2011 which cannot be justified in law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 does not disclose any reason whatsoever, except that, in the meeting of the Managing Committee, the officer of the department was not present. The learned counsel thus, submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and it discloses non-application of mind on the part of the respondent-authority. 4. As against the above, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that, since it is mandatory under the Rules that the representative of the department should participate in the meeting of the Managing Committee when a decision with respect to appointment of teachers is taken and since, the meeting in which the petitioner was appointed, no representative of the department was present, the proposition statement of the petitioner has rightly not been approved. Relying on statement made in paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned order dated 27.12.2011. 5. From the facts as disclosed in the writ petition, I find that, it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed on 09.03.1993 and he was paid salary upto February, 2010. The petitioner was thus paid salary for about 20 years. The impugned order dated 27.12.2011 discloses that, the proposition statement of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that in the meeting of the Managing Committee, the representative of the department was not present. The petitioner was thus paid salary for about 20 years. The impugned order dated 27.12.2011 discloses that, the proposition statement of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that in the meeting of the Managing Committee, the representative of the department was not present. I am of the opinion that the reason disclosed in the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 is not sustainable in law. There is no reference of any circular/guidelines on the basis of which the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 has been passed. There is no doubt in my mind that the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 would entail serious civil consequences to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has a right to know the reasons for which the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 has been passed. Moreover, I find that, it has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was eligible at the time of appointment, and therefore, merely because the representative of the department was not present in the meeting of the Managing Committee, the proposition statement of the petitioner cannot be rejected. I also do not find any reference of any irregularity committed by the Managing Committee while appointing the petitioner and therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 6. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and make payment of current salary as well as arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period the petitioner had actually worked. However, it would be open to the respondents to initiate an inquiry into the matter, if so advised. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.