Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1130 (JHR)

Arun Prakash Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-17

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No.847 dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure-7) whereby the Block Education Extension Officer (Respondent No.6) has been directed not to take work from the petitioner as Resource Teacher and further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding upon the respondent authority to take work from the petitioner as Resource Teacher after providing all the facilities and benefits. 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that, in pursuance to an advertisement published in daily news paper “Hindustan” for the purpose of appointment of Resource Teacher, the petitioner applied for the post of Resource Teacher from Godda District and appeared in the written examination and successfully qualified in the said written examination. A select list was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner finds at Serial No.37 as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application and he has been selected for the post of Resource Teacher and thereafter, he was called in the counselling by letter No.631 dated 31.05.2012 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. In pursuance to selection, the petitioner joined on 28.06.2012 as Resource Teacher in the office of the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda. After joining in the aforesaid post on 28.06.2012, a letter bearing Memo No.794 dated 02.07.2012 was issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda, whereby the petitioner was posted at Basantrai Block within the district of Godda where he joined on 03.07.2012 and continued to work on the said post as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. But to the utter surprise and consternation, a letter bearing Memo No.847 dated 16.07.2012 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda served upon him prohibiting to discharge work owing to over age, as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order under Annexure-7, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and M/s S. Arun & Deepak Kr. 3. Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and M/s S. Arun & Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and perused the records minutely. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of argument has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents for removing the petitioner from services on the ground of upper age without one month prior notice being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as action of the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument has further submitted that on perusal of the column-1 of the advertisement, it is quite evident that the minimum age prescribed for the post of Resource Teacher is 18 years, but the maximum age has not been prescribed but the impugned decision vide Annexure-7 to the writ application has been passed on the ground of over age visiting petitioner with civil consequences thereby attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India being violative of terms of advertisement. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously refuted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and has referred to paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner is over age and not fit to be selected. It is further submitted that the maximum age limit criteria has already been decided by the District Selection Committee, Godda in its meeting dated 25.05.2012. As per Government rule, the maximum age limit details are as per decision of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand for the appointment on different categories in the State, as per Annexure-A/2 series to the counter-affidavit, are as under:- Sl. No. Categories Maximum Age Limit Maximum age limit for desirable person 1. General 35 Years 40 Years 2. BC/OBC 37 Years 42 Years 3. Female (Gen/BC/OBC/SC/ST) 38 Years 43 Years 4. No. Categories Maximum Age Limit Maximum age limit for desirable person 1. General 35 Years 40 Years 2. BC/OBC 37 Years 42 Years 3. Female (Gen/BC/OBC/SC/ST) 38 Years 43 Years 4. SC/ST Male/Female 40 Years 45 Years It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter was discussed in the District Level Committee dated 25.03.2013 and the Committee discussed the entire matter minutely and passed a resolution to cancel the same after getting show cause letter on the basis of petitioner's age and in compliance of the decision of the District Selection Committee, Godda, the respondent issued a letter memo no.-465 dated 26.03.2013 and in response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his application on 11.04.2013 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of decision of District Selection Committee, Godda. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter bearing memo No.-90 dated 27.01.2014 to cancel the petitioner's selection for the post of Resource Teacher, which was communicated to the petitioner, the copy of the resolution dated 24.05.2012, resolution dated 25.03.2013, letter memo no.-2063 dated 28.04.2006, letter bearing memo no.-465 dated 26.03.2013 and letter bearing memo no.-90 dated 27.01.2014 have been filed as per Annexure-A series to the counter-affidavit. For the aforesaid submission, the respondents have assiduously submitted that the action of the respondents is just and proper and writ application is liable for dismissal being devoid of merit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, it appears that the impugned decision vide Annexure-7 of the writ application is not legally sustainable due to the following facts and reasons:- (i) Indisputably, in the advertisement as per Annexure-1 to the writ application for appointment of Resource Teacher maximum age has not been prescribed, though as per Clause 1(2) minimum age of 18 years has been mentioned. The petitioner was under the bona fide notion and impression that since no upper age has been prescribed, he was eligible to be appointed for the said post. Accordingly, after being selected in the selection, the petitioner was appointed on the said post and continued in discharging duties but subsequently being over age, the respondent no.4 (District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda) did not take work from the petitioner which has resulted in termination of services of petitioner, as disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Accordingly, after being selected in the selection, the petitioner was appointed on the said post and continued in discharging duties but subsequently being over age, the respondent no.4 (District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda) did not take work from the petitioner which has resulted in termination of services of petitioner, as disclosed in the counter-affidavit. The aforesaid impugned decision has been taken vide Annexure-7 to the writ application basing on the decision of the District Level Selection Committee, Godda relying upon the decision of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand for the appointment on different categories in the State as per Annexure-A/2 to the counter-affidavit but since the advertisement was silent about the upper age, the action of the respondents by issuing Annexure-7 visited the petitioner with civil consequences thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the cumulative effect of the facts and reasons, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned decision dated 16.07.2012 vide Annexure-7 of the writ application is not legally sustainable and hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in services within a period two months. However, it is made clear that the interregnum period, i.e. from the date of termination till date of reinstatement, shall be computed for the seniority of the petitioner but the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages/salary during the interregnum period. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.