Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1021 (JHR)

Shyam Nandan Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-12

ANANDA SEN

body2016
Order : The petitioners in this Writ Petition have prayed for the following reliefs :- (I) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/set aside office order contained in memo No. MGT/03/2004/1314/Bokaro dated 25.09.2012, so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder the petitions who are posted as cluster resource Persons (CRPs) in different Blocks of Bokaro district, are being sought to be sent to Giridih district, without the authority of law, against the terms and conditions of the appointment, and, in particular ignoring the fact that the cadre of the petitioners are that of cluster level; (II) A further writ, order or direction to hold and declare that the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Program Officer, Bokaro (respondent no.3) has no power and jurisdiction to pass an order sending the petitioners to other district by way of an impugned office order dated 25.09.2012; and to further hold and declare that the petitioners are not at all working in excess of the sanctioned strength of 130 Cluster Resource person in the District of Bokaro in as much as all the petitioners were appointed on 6.6.2005 i.e. the 1st lot of the appointment of CRPs in the district of Bokaro whereas the CRPs who were appointed in the subsequent years i.e. in 2006 and 2007 have retained in the district of Bokaro itself; (III) During the pendency of the writ petition operation of office order contained in Memo No.MGT/03/2004/1314/Bokaro dated 25.09.2012, so far it relates to the petitioners may kindly be stayed. (IV) Any other appropriate writs, orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners. 2. That it has been mentioned in the Writ application that exactly similar issue was decided in Writ Petition being W.P. (S) No.6777 of 2012 and the said Writ Petition was heard and dismissed vide order dated 13th February, 2013. 3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the writ petitioners moved the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. Nos.131 and 134 of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11th August, 2015, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding therein that it is not obligatory on the part of the State to oust the lastly appointed persons first. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11th August, 2015, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding therein that it is not obligatory on the part of the State to oust the lastly appointed persons first. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench 'last come first go' principle is not applicable for those persons appointed on contract basis under a scheme known as 'Sarva Siksha Abhiyan'. 4. Further it has been held that when there are appointments of Cluster Resource Person made in excessive, the State can always transfer/adjust few of them or any of them. The State is not bound to follow the aforesaid principle i.e. 'last come first go'. What should be the policy of appointment, is always left open for the State. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for this adjustment. The State must allow to have free movement. Such relaxation ought to have given to the State. The petitioners cannot say what should be better policy of the State. The State authority evolved their own policy for adjustment of transfer. On these basis, the aforesaid L.P.As. were dismissed. 5. I find that the instant writ Petition is squarely covered by the final order passed in L.P.A. Nos.131 and 134 of 2013. In that view, this Writ Petition also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.