Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1411 (JHR)

Chinta Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A dispute has arisen relating to the selection of the petitioner as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Mal Bhadrain, Raitola, Godda by Aam Sabha on 13th February, 2007. Petitioner has enclosed the proceeding of Aam Sabha at Annexure1 series signed by Chairman, Village Education Committee where she was the only candidate for consideration and was having qualification of Intermediate of Arts, belonging to Extremely Backward Class and resident of beneficiary area of the said school. She has also enclosed her educational certificates issued by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna of matriculation pass in 2nd Division in Annual Exam, 1993 from one Girls High School, Godda. The Caste Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Godda dated 2nd January, 2007 showing her to be belonging to Kurmi Caste and the residential certificate also issued on 2nd January, 2007 showing her as wife of Late Murlidhar Mahto, Mauza-Shampur is also annexed. She has also annexed certain letters at Annexure2 series being recommendation of the Block Education Extension Officer, Godda East through letter no. 51 dated 20th June, 2007 which contains the name of several persons including petitioner whose names were recommended for appointment as Para Teachers in the respective elementary schools, also enclosing the relevant documents. Annexure2/1 dated 25th June, 2008 signed by Block Education Extension Officer and Block Development Officer, Godda is in the nature of approval of selection of several persons as Para Teacher including the petitioner on the recommendation of Aam Sabha as per the decision of Block Level Education Committee dated 5th December, 2007. Annexure-3 is a format signed by the District Programme Officer, Godda on 28th March, 2008 which shows sanction of Rs. 22998/as honorarium from 25th June, 2008 to March, 2009 in respect of the petitioner as Para Teacher in the said school. After March, 2009, petitioner has not got any honorarium though she claims that she has discharged her duties thereafter. 3. The respondents' counter affidavit also contains series of correspondences which have been undertaken between the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda, respondent no. 3 with respondent no. 5, Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Convener, Block Level, Shiksha Samittee . Respondent no. 5 has questioned the very selection of the petitioner by Aam Sabha of the said village in his letter no. 276 dated 20th September, 2013 (AnnexureB/1). 3 with respondent no. 5, Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Convener, Block Level, Shiksha Samittee . Respondent no. 5 has questioned the very selection of the petitioner by Aam Sabha of the said village in his letter no. 276 dated 20th September, 2013 (AnnexureB/1). On receipt of that, the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure-C letter no. 1338 dated 7th October, 2013 has again asked him to conduct a proper inquiry and also furnish a report in respect of documents annexed to the writ petition being Annexure1 and 2 series. 4. The reply by the respondent no. 5 at Annexure-C/1 dated 22nd October, 2013 bearing letter no. 308 again reiterates that there was no such Aam Sabha held for selection of the petitioner as Para Teacher and the Secretary of the school has stated that the signatures shown therein are forged. Letter of Secretary, Obinath Mahto of the Village Education Committee of the said school is also enclosed thereto. 5. Petitioner contends that a wholly unseemly controversy has been raised in respect of her selection and the approval accorded thereafter by the Block Education Committee as Para Teacher and even after payment of honorarium till March 2009. It is submitted that the stand of the respondents to deny honorarium questioning the legality and the genuineness of the appointment of the petitioner is wholly untenable in law and on facts. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the competent authority under the respondents may be directed to hold a fresh inquiry in which opportunity should be given to the petitioner also to produce all relevant documents to substantiate her claim . 6. Counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the respondent no. 3 conducted an inquiry through the respondent no. 5 in relation to the selection of petitioner and any discharge of her duties also for the period she is claiming honorarium. Even on repeated inquiry being made through the respondent no. 5, it has transpired that no Aam Sabha as such was held on the relevant date on which the petitioner claims to have been selected. If the appointment itself is forged and the documents are fabricated, petitioner is not entitled for any honorarium on that account as a Para Teacher. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. If the appointment itself is forged and the documents are fabricated, petitioner is not entitled for any honorarium on that account as a Para Teacher. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. There are documents shown on the part of the petitioner relating to not only her selection by Aam Sabha but also its approval by the Block Level Committee and sanction of an amount for payment of honorarium in the accounts of Village Education Committee. Petitioner also accepts that such honorarium has been paid to her till March, 2009. Learned counsel for respondents as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit submits that the Block Education Extension Officer on 20th September, 2013 has reported that an amount of Rs. 15,000/was still lying towards honorarium payable to the petitioner but was not paid because it was found that she had not been properly selected. On the converse side, the respondents, in their inquiry conducted after filing of the writ application in June, 2013 have come to the conclusion through the reports of the Block Education Extension Officer that there was no such selection by any Aam Sabha on the date petitioner claims to have been selected as Para Teacher. The report of the Block Education Extension Officer, respondent no. 5 (Annexure-C/ 1) dated 22nd October, 2013, however, does not deal with the specific queries made by the respondent no. 3 in his letter no. 1338 dated 7th October, 2013, more specifically in respect of documents enclosed as Annexures1 & 2 series to the writ petition that is approval for selection of several persons including the petitioner as Para Teacher in their respective school. It therefore appears that for proper determination on the rival claims made by the parties, the respondent no. 3 should grant opportunity to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents in support of her selection and approval and discharge of her duties in Upgraded Middle School, Mal Bhadrain, Raitola, Godda to come to a finding on the question of her appointment as Para Teacher and for any payment of honorarium that may arise thereupon. The respondent no. 3 should grant opportunity to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents in support of her selection and approval and discharge of her duties in Upgraded Middle School, Mal Bhadrain, Raitola, Godda to come to a finding on the question of her appointment as Para Teacher and for any payment of honorarium that may arise thereupon. The respondent no. 3 would also be entitled to call for any further reports from the concerned official including the Secretary of the Village Education Committee, the Headmaster of the school, Block Education Extension Officer and Block Development Officer, Godda as also such documents which relate to the selection and approval of Para Teacher in the said school in the relevant period. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, District-Godda to conduct the aforesaid exercise to arrive at an informed decision, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Depending upon such decision, if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, any admissible honorarium be released thereafter in her favour without any unreasonable delay. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No. 5507 of 2013 is also closed.