Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 969 (JHR)

Gauri Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Seeking quashing of order dated 02.07.2015 whereby, the Circle Officer, Sahebganj has declined to issue residential certificate for employment purpose, the present writ petition has been filed. A further prayer seeking direction upon the respondent-District Superintendent of Education to accept the residential certificate dated 23.08.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahebganj as a valid certificate for her candidature for appointment on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher and Graduate Trained Teacher has also been made in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner claims herself resident of Mouza-Rampurkarara (Sakrigalighat), Sahebganj. Pursuant to advertisement no. 05 of 2015 and 06/2015 she applied for appointment on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher and Graduate Trained Teacher. The petitioner was born at Sahebganj and she was married to one Nalin Bilochan in the year, 1990. The husband of the petitioner was a resident of District-Bhagalpur, Binar however, after marriage, the couple is residing at Sahebganj. The petitioner is enrolled in voter list and voter identity card has been issued from Sahebganj. The petitioner has three children, all were born at Sahebganj. The petitioner has disclosed that her elder son Satyam Kumar is studying in Upgraded Middle School, Sahebganj in class-VIII and her second son is studying in Upgraded Middle School at Sakrigalighat, Sahebganj, in class-VII and her third son is also studying at Upgraded Middle School, Sahebganj in class-VI. The petitioner passed her matriculation examination from Haripur, Bihar in the year, 1995 when she was staying with her grandmother at Khagaria. The petitioner graduated from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year, 2005. It is asserted that the petitioner's husband is also working as Lecturer in Sahebganj College since 2007. The petitioner has been selected by Village Education Committee as parateacher on 14.03.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that the petitioner's husband is a resident of Bihar, the Circle Officer has declined to issue residential certificate for employment purpose to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to decision in "Prashant Vidyarthy and Suman Kr. Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors." reported in (2003) 1 JCR 3 and submits that parameters mentioned in the judgment should have been considered by the Circle Officer for issuing residential certificate. Percontra, Mr. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to decision in "Prashant Vidyarthy and Suman Kr. Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors." reported in (2003) 1 JCR 3 and submits that parameters mentioned in the judgment should have been considered by the Circle Officer for issuing residential certificate. Percontra, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned G.A. refers to letter dated 17.07.2002 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa and submits that residential certificate for employment purpose can be issued only if the candidate or his/her ancestor's name appears in the Survey Record of Rights. 4. Considering the Full Bench decision in "Prashant Vidyarthy", I am of the opinion that instructions contained under letter dated 17.07.2002 cannot be implemented. Moreover, it cannot be contended that a person who holds no land either in his/her name or in his/her ancestor's name cannot be issued residential certificate (employment purpose). In order dated 03.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 2805 of 2015 this Court observed as under : 5. “........I am of the considered opinion that the Circle Officer is under a duty to issue a residential certificate to a person who claims himself/herself a local resident and produces unimpeachable documents in support of such claim. The Circle Officer may exercise his/her discretion for conducting a physical enquiry and/or requiring a person to produce documentary evidence such as, proof of education, proof of residence etc. and after being satisfied, the Circle Officer would issue a residential certificate to the said person.” 5. Considering the facts disclosed in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the Circle Officer is required to examine the documents produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding. Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.07.2015 is quashed and the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Circle Officer who shall examine her case afresh, within two weeks. 6. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms. Petition allowed.