Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1128 (JHR)

Afzal Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the respondent-Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council bearing memo no.JAC/196/06 dated 25th January, 2006 which approved the appointment of the teachers by the Managing Committee of Madarsa Ahsanul Uloom, Garrikala Madarsa No.735, Hazaribag on the ground that the Secretary or the Managing Committee of the Madarsa has no power to appoint the teachers in view of law of Madarsa Education Board. He has also prayed for cancellation of the affiliation of the said Madarsa. 3. Petitioner has not enclosed the constitution of the Madarsa Board by the Jharkhand Academic Council or by any other competent authority, pursuant whereto the meetings of the managing committee of the said Madarsa Board were held on number of dates such as on 25th August, 2002, 3rd October, 2002 and 12th December, 2002, copies of those proceedings have been enclosed. Petitioner claims to be a representative of the parents of the students studying there who was also present in the aforesaid meetings. Proceedings dated 16th December, 2002 approved the appointment of several teachers of the Madarsa (Annexure-4) observing that they were appointed after due procedure, interview and on fulfilment of the prescribed qualifications. The appointment of the teachers of the said Madarsa approved by the respondent-JAC through impugned order dated 25th January, 2006 has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ application filed in 2014. Petitioner submits that earlier representations were preferred. Thereafter, a public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No.7976 of 2012 was also filed in 2012 which was dismissed as withdrawn on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner as it was pointed out by the respondents-State and the Jharkhand Academic Council that no public interest is involved in the matter. As such, the writ petition was held as not maintainable (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present matter in 2014. In the present writ petition none of those persons, whose appointments are being questioned and as reflected in Annexure-5, have been made respondents, though President and Secretary of the said Madarsa has been impleaded as respondent nos. 6 and 7. Petitioner has alleged that these persons were illegally appointed by the managing committee, though they did not fulfil the criteria for appointment. One Md. 6 and 7. Petitioner has alleged that these persons were illegally appointed by the managing committee, though they did not fulfil the criteria for appointment. One Md. Nasir Raja who has been appointed as an Alim, has passed Alim (Hons.) in the year 2003. It is further urged that the Managing Committee of the Madarsa did not have the sanction to make appointment of teachers of the said Madarsa. 4. State has filed a counter affidavit inter-alia asserting that the petitioner has been in habit of dominating the Madarsa Managing Committee and trying to influence its decision earlier also. Proceedings of the meetings would also show his presence on the dates on which meetings have been held. Petitioner also indulged in snatching away some important papers and abused all the members of the Madarsa which led to institution of an F.I.R. (Annexure-B) in 2011. The respondent-District Education Officer, Hazaribag has supported the approval of the appointment of the teachers of the said Madarsa by the respondent-JAC in terms of the powers conferred through notification no. 1790 dated 19.12.1977 of the Education Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-C) which relates to service conditions of Madarsa teachers. The said Madarsa is being controlled and guided by the Madarsa Education Ordinance, 1981 and action of the respondent no.3 is based on the powers conferred through the said Act. It is further stated that the teachers were eligible at the time of appointment made by the managing committee in which the petitioner was also a Member and it is also apparent that the petitioner had lodged no protest. 5. A new managing committee was constituted on 29th August, 2002. Thereafter, Jharkhand Academic Council, which is the sole authority now to look after the Madarsa education, has approved the appointment of those teachers. It is also asserted that the managing committee was allowed by the answering respondent to advertise. Thereafter, the vacancies were published, applications were obtained and on interview in which the answering respondent remained present, a detailed merit list was also prepared. After completing these formalities, the merit list was sent for approval of the Jharkhand Academic Council. Petitioner was always a part of the process undertaken for appointment. At paragraph-20 of the counter affidavit also the approval of appointment of four persons as teachers has been supported stating that they were competent and fulfilled all the requirements at the time of appointment. Petitioner was always a part of the process undertaken for appointment. At paragraph-20 of the counter affidavit also the approval of appointment of four persons as teachers has been supported stating that they were competent and fulfilled all the requirements at the time of appointment. Respondent-District Education Officer, Hazaribag also sent a report regarding the newly constituted managing committee. Thereafter approval was granted by the respondent-JAC. 6. These assertions have not been controverted by the petitioner through any rejoinder either. 7. Prima-facie the present cause of action, if at all maintainable, is belated having been raised after eight years of the approval and about 12 years of the appointment of those teachers. None of the teachers in question have been impleaded as party respondents, Counsel for the respondent-JAC has also submitted that petitioner despite being an active participant in the proceedings of the Managing Committee has raised the grievance after pretty long period of time and failed to controvert categorical assertion on merits on the part of the respondent-District Education Officer, Hazaribag on the question of appointment of these teachers. 8. On a conspectus of the entire facts and on consideration of the submission of the parties, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present writ petition. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.