Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 43 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-09

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2015
Order The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.9.2010, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service as para teacher. 2. The brief facts of the case, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been selected as a para teacher in a meeting held on 8.11.2008 in presence of the members of the Gram Shiksha Samiti, Baghra, Bengabad in the district of Giridh against the vacant post at Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Baghra, Bengabad. The petitioner’s selection was also recommended by the Block Extension Education Officer, Bengabad. Thereafter, the petitioner had started discharging his duty and marking his attendance in the attendance register, which was kept in the office of the Head Master of the said school. However, honorarium was not paid to the petitioner in spite of repeated representations before the competent authority. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 2921/2010 for payment of honorarium. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2.8.2010. Thereafter, the authorities have passed the order dated 22.9.2010 terminating the petitioner from service instead of payment of honorarium. 3. According to the petitioner, he had been appointed against the vacant post of para teacher in the said school possessing the same qualification, which is also being possessed by other two para teachers of the said school. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he had filed a writ petition for release of his honorarium, instead of making payment of the same, the authorities have passed the order of his termination, that too on the ground that he is not possessing required qualification, as has been prescribed under the guidelines of the Government for appointment of the para teachers. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the qualification, which the petitioner is possessing, is also being possessed by other two para teachers, but they are still working in the said school. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the advertisement published by them, there was no reference of the school where the petitioner had been appointed as a para teacher. The petitioner is not possessing required educational qualification, which is necessary for appointment of a para teacher. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the advertisement published by them, there was no reference of the school where the petitioner had been appointed as a para teacher. The petitioner is not possessing required educational qualification, which is necessary for appointment of a para teacher. The petitioner was on deputation in the said school to perform his duty as a para teacher in place of one Mohan Singh, who is working as an assistant teacher in the said school. The moment Mohan Singh resumed his duty, service of the petitioner was not required, as such he automatically removed. 6. So far as the contention of the petitioner that his appointment had been recommended by the Block Education Extension Officer, learned counsel submitted that merely on the ground of recommendation of the Block Education Extension Officer, a person cannot be permitted to continue in service, if his appointment is without any advertisement and if he is not possessing required qualification. 7. Heard the parties, perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was deputed in the school in question in place of one Mohan Singh. When Mohan Singh resumed his duty, deputation of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled. But even after resuming the duty by Mohan Singh, the petitioner had continued to attend the duty. The petitioner had claimed honorarium for the said period and when the same was not paid, he preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2921/2010. In terms thereof, after perusing the record, the authorities found that the petitioner had been directed to discharge his duty on deputation due to absence of Mohan Singh, who was an assistant teacher in the said school. Admittedly, the petitioner was not selected by the Aam Sabha and he was only deputed to discharge his duty in place of Mohan Singh by way of stop gap arrangement. When Mohan Singh resumed his duty, deputation of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled, but even thereafter he used to attend the school. The arrear of honorarium for the period during which he had preformed his duty as a para teacher in place of Mohan Singh in his absence, was paid to the petitioner, but after resuming the duty by Mohan Singh as an assistant teacher, the petitioner’s deputation stood automatically cancelled. 9. The arrear of honorarium for the period during which he had preformed his duty as a para teacher in place of Mohan Singh in his absence, was paid to the petitioner, but after resuming the duty by Mohan Singh as an assistant teacher, the petitioner’s deputation stood automatically cancelled. 9. An advertisement was issued, which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, inviting applications for filling up the vacant posts of para teachers in different blocks in the district of Giriidih under Jharkhand Education Project. The school in question is situated in Bengabad Block. The list of the schools under Bengabad Block is at Page 31 of the counter affidavit wherein there is no reference of the school in question i.e. Utkramit Middle School, Baghra, Bengabad. The petitioner’s claim that by virtue of a meeting held on 8.11.2008 in terms of the notice issued by the Jharkhand Education Project (Annexure-A), he has been selected, does not appear to be true because the said notice contains the names of different blocks including Bengabad Block, but under Bengabad Block, the name of Utkramit Middle School, Baghra does not find mention. When there was no notice or advertisement regarding filling up the posts, there cannot be any appointment without any notice or advertisement. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he had been selected in a General Body meeting conducted by the Village Education Committee, does not appear to be genuine because the said Committee cannot take decision with respect to appointment of a para teacher in absence of any advertisement. 10. The claim of the petitioner that one vacancy was there, as only two para teachers were working, is also not correct because there is no vacancy in the said school, as two para teachers were already working and the post against which the petitioner was working had already been occupied by Mohan Singh. The petitioner had performed his duty on deputation in place of Mohan Singh, but the moment Mohan Singh resumed his duty, the said vacancy stood filled up, perhaps due to the said reason, reference of the school in question has not been made in the notice (Annexure-A). Further, in the notice (Annexure-A), minimum educational qualification has been mentioned only for the science faculty and there is no requirement of any arts teacher having qualification of Graduation in Arts. Admittedly, the petitioner is possessing qualification of B.A (Hons.) in Geography. Further, in the notice (Annexure-A), minimum educational qualification has been mentioned only for the science faculty and there is no requirement of any arts teacher having qualification of Graduation in Arts. Admittedly, the petitioner is possessing qualification of B.A (Hons.) in Geography. As per the said notice, required minimum educational qualification is Graduation in science faculty and there is no reference of any qualification under arts faculty. In view thereof, the petitioner was not possessing minimum educational qualification. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioner that other two teachers are possessing the same qualification, the same is also not correct in view of the fact that the authorities have passed the order giving specific reference at paragraph 6 wherein it has been stated that the para teachers, namely, Rameshwar Prasad Yadav and Smt. Molidi Murmu are possessing required educational qualification while the petitioner is not possessing required educational qualification. 12. Thus, while considering the representation of the petitioner for payment of honorarium in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2921/2010, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh has considered all aspects of the matter and has found that the petitioner is not fit to be continued on the post of para teacher and thereafter he has taken a decision to terminate him from service. The said authority has also taken care of the fact that the Block Extension Education Officer, Bengabad had recommended the case of the petitioner illegally and in view thereof, a direction has also been given to the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Gridih to proceed against him departmentally by framing charge against him on the ground that when there was no vacancy, how the petitioner had been appointed illegally on the basis of his recommendation. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above and for the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this writ petition. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.