Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1205 (JHR)

Deo Narayan Rana v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-30

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of for the month of April 2011 and May 2011 and continuously from August 2011. A further prayer has been made for confirmation of the services of the petitioner in terms of the order as contained in letter dated 18.03.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a meeting of the Village Education Committee, the petitioner was appointed as a Para, Teacher Category-2 in Upgraded Middle School, Gangti, Sarath. The petitioner joined in the said school on 30.03.2010 and he is still continuing to work there. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of taking work from the petitioner, salary has not been paid from the months of April 2011 and May 2011 and from August 2011 onwards. Representations were submitted by the petitioner, but since the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 2. Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned J.C. to S.C. I for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 3. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was selected by the Village Education Committee and approval was also made by the Block Level Education Committee on his selection and pursuant to the same, the petitioner is continuing to discharge his duties as a para teacher. It has also been submitted that in view of the long period of service rendered by the petitioner, the respondents should have confirmed the petitioner in the said post. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that in terms of the guidelines contained in Reference No. JEPC/SPD/1971 dated 21.12.2005 during the process of selection of a para teacher by the Village Education Committee, the presence of an officer duly nominated/authorised by the District Superintendent of Education on his behalf is a mandatory requirement. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that in terms of the guidelines contained in Reference No. JEPC/SPD/1971 dated 21.12.2005 during the process of selection of a para teacher by the Village Education Committee, the presence of an officer duly nominated/authorised by the District Superintendent of Education on his behalf is a mandatory requirement. It has further been submitted that the Jharkhand Education Project Council has already prescribed the norms and procedures for selection, but which has been given a go by inasmuch as, prior to the approval of the petitioner by the Block Education Committee, the name of the petitioner was not approved by the Village Education Committee of Upgraded Middle School, Gangati, Sarath. Learned counsel further adds that the Secretary cum Head Master of Upgraded Middle School, Gangati, Sarath was directed to show-cause as to how honourarium has been paid to the petitioner illegally and how work has been taken from the petitioner. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned J.C. to S.C. I has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 6. For the selection of para teachers in terms of the guidelines issued by the respondent no. 5, the selection by the Village Education Committee has to follow the guidelines laid down by JEPC. The meeting of the Committee mandated that for selection of a para teacher, representative of the District Superintendent of Education had to be present. The so-called meeting of the Village Education Committee does not disclose the presence of any representative of the District Superintendent of Education. Moreover, from the minutes of the meeting dated 30.03.2010 held by the Village Education Committee, it appears that the Block Level Education Committee had given the approval for appointment of para teachers in category 1, 2 & 3 including the petitioner which itself shows the manner of appointment of the petitioner. The Village Education Committee has to first approve the selection of a para teacher by following the norms and guidelines issued from time to time by JEPC and the same has to be subsequently approved by the Block Level Education Committee. The Village Education Committee has to first approve the selection of a para teacher by following the norms and guidelines issued from time to time by JEPC and the same has to be subsequently approved by the Block Level Education Committee. In this case, it appears that a reverse process had been undergone as per the minutes of the meeting of the Village Education Committee dated 30.03.2010 inasmuch as, after approval by the Block Level Education Committee, selection was made of the petitioner. This reverse process and absence of representative of the District Superintendent of Education creates a great doubt over the selection of the petitioner as a para teacher. Further nothing has been brought on record to suggest that an agreement was entered into with the petitioner or any appointment letter was issued appointing him to the post of para teacher and absence of the said documents further creates a suspicion in the entire selection process. Since the appointment itself was not in accordance with law, the petitioner is not entitled to get any honourarium/salary for the period he is alleged to have put in work. 7. It appears that during the pendency of the writ application, an order was passed by the respondent no. 5 dated 25.07.2015 in which the petitioner has been relieved from his job in terms of the decision taken by the JEPC. However, since the said letter dated 25.07.2015 is not under challenge in this writ application, this Court is restraining itself from making any reference to the order of termination. 8. As a cumulative effect of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.