Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 770 (JHR)

Most Robina Sultana v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Office Order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 by which the approval of appointment of the petitioner as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar in the district of Pakur has been cancelled and the name of the respondent no. 7 has been approved. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay honorarium to the petitioner from March 2010 onwards as also to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Para Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar in the district of Pakur. 2. A notice was published dated 19.05.2009 by the District Program Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Pakur for appointment on the post of Para Teacher. The petitioner submitted his application for appointment as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar in the district of Pakur. Along with the petitioner, 15 other persons have applied out of which 4 persons were found eligible for being selected which consisted of 3 male and the petitioner was the only female candidate. The Village Education Committee had sent the entire proceeding to the Block Education Committee for taking a final decision with respect to appointment on the 2nd post of Para Teacher and it was decided to appoint the petitioner and consequently appointment letter was issued to the petitioner in terms of letter no. 100 dated 28.05.2009. The petitioner submitted her joining on 01.07.2009 which was accepted by the Village Education Committee. However, by an office order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 the approval of appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the name of the respondent no. 7 was approved. This office order dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Coordinator, Block Education Committee, Pakur was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 61 of 2011 in which an order was passed on 04.07.2011 by which the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 was quashed and the writ application was allowed. The respondent no. 7 challenged the order dated 04.07.2011 passed in this case in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2011 and vide order dated 10.07.2012, the matter has been remanded to the Single Bench since the order dated 04.07.2011 was passed without hearing the appellant (respondent no. 7) and hence on remand, the present writ application has been heard afresh. 3. Heard Mr. 7 challenged the order dated 04.07.2011 passed in this case in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2011 and vide order dated 10.07.2012, the matter has been remanded to the Single Bench since the order dated 04.07.2011 was passed without hearing the appellant (respondent no. 7) and hence on remand, the present writ application has been heard afresh. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 and Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned J.C. to G.P. I. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 as contained in Memo No. 41 by submitting that prior to cancellation of the recommendation of the petitioner to be appointed as a Para Teacher, admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the District Education Officer cum District Program Officer, Pakur had addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Pakur wherein it has been categorically stated after a comparative analysis of the eligibility of the candidates in the fray it has been concluded that the selection of the petitioner by the Block Education Committee was as per the norms. Mr. Manoj Tandon has further drawn the attention of the Court to the meeting of the Block Education Committee dated 27.05.2009 wherein in the agenda with respect to Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar, Pakur, it was decided to recommend the case of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the Village Education Committee. It has further been submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner at paragraph 17 of the writ application has not been denied by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit at paragraph 30. Similar was the position in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 7 wherein at paragraph 16, the claim of the petitioner with respect to eligibility of the petitioner as well as the fact that before passing of the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner has not been controverted. 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 wherein at paragraph 16, the claim of the petitioner with respect to eligibility of the petitioner as well as the fact that before passing of the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner has not been controverted. 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 has submitted that it is the Village Education Committee who is the competent authority for appointment of a Para Teacher, but in the present case, the Village Education Committee did not select the petitioner as a Para Teacher. It has also been submitted while referring to the Inquiry Report that there has been manipulation by the Secretary of the Village Education Committee and Resolution No. 4 was initially not there, but was subsequently inserted at the instance of the Secretary of the Village Education Committee. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel further submits that in terms of the criteria required for being appointed as a Para Teacher, one post was for an Arts Graduate having additional/extra subject of English. The petitioner was never having an additional/extra subject of English and this fact would go to show that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of being appointed as a Para Teacher. Learned senior counsel while referring to the Inquiry Report has further submitted that the respondent no. 7 was highly qualified inasmuch as, he was an Honours Graduate in Geography having 60.25% of marks with an additional/extra subject of English whereas the petitioner is merely a Graduate without Honours having obtained only 33% marks. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the initial recommendation of subsequent appointment of the petitioner was ab initio void as neither the petitioner had the requisite qualification nor the Village Education Committee had selected the petitioner as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar in the district of Pakur. 6. Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned J.C. to G.P. I has supported the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 and has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7. 7. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 has tried to highlight the fact that the respondent no. Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned J.C. to G.P. I has supported the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 and has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7. 7. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 has tried to highlight the fact that the respondent no. 7 was having the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar, Pakur and on inquiring into the matter since some interpolations/malpractices were detected, the recommendation of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. However, it has not been disputed or has been categorically denied either by the respondents – State of Jharkhand or the private respondent no. 7 that prior to issuance of the impugned office order dated 05.03.2010, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner or for that matter, the petitioner was ever heard before issuing the office order cancelling the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned letter dated 05.03.2010 does not contain any reasons whatsoever as to what prompted the authorities to cancel the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 as has been indicated above has harped upon the illegalities committed during the selection process, but none of the illegalities as has been pointed out finds mention in the impugned office order dated 05.03.2010. The office order dated 05.03.2010 is a thoroughly non-speaking order and is devoid of any reasons. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel has tried to justify the impugned order by submitting that the advertisement issued for appointment of Para Teacher should have been strictly followed which has not been done in the present case; and that the material information was suppressed and there was fraud and collusion on the part of the Secretary of the Village Education Committee. He has referred to the judgment in the cases of “Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others” reported in 2013 (4) JCR 154 (SC), “Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India” reported in (1987) PLJR 79 (SC) and “Amlan Jyoti Barooah Vs. State of Assam & Others” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 . None of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Union of India” reported in (1987) PLJR 79 (SC) and “Amlan Jyoti Barooah Vs. State of Assam & Others” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 . None of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Admittedly, since no notice of hearing had been given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 and since the same is a thoroughly non-speaking order and being not in accordance with law and violative of the principles of natural justice, the office order as contained in Memo No. 41 dated 05.03.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 4 who shall take a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the eligible candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and thereafter shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ application is allowed in terms aforesaid. Application allowed.