Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 116 (JHR)

SURENDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2016-01-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petitioner could not receive recognition of his service in Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma in view of the report of Three Man Alam Committee on the post of Peon for the reason that two sanctioned post of peon in the school in question were already filled up by posting of two peons appointed on compassionate ground in 2002 and 2005 respectively by the respondents. Three Man Alam Committee report at Annexure-7 so far it relates to present petitioner is under challenge in the instant writ petition by virtue of I. A. No. 5459 of 2013 having been allowed vide order dated 13.08.2013. Petitioner has been shown to have been appointed on 30.12.1984 in the school, which was selected on 23.05.1985 by Three Man Committee earlier constituted by Government of Bihar vide letter no. 142 dated 23.02.1985. Petitioner is shown to have VIIIth Pass in the report. 3. In these background facts, petitioner has sought similar consideration as accorded by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 4219 of 2011 in the case of Lakhpat Yadav v. State of Jharkhand vide judgment dated 30.10.2015. Petitioner Lakhpat Yadav was an another peon appointed by the management of the school on 20.12.1983 with 9th pass qualification, who was not granted recognition of service on the same ground by the respondent pursuant to Three Man Alam Committee report. This Court by a detailed judgment dated 30.10.2015, Annexure-9 passed in the case of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra) had directed the respondent no. 2, Director (Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department (now Department of School Education and Literacy) to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after taking into account the relevant attendant material facts and observation made in the said case. Counsel for the petitioner has therefore sought for similar relief in the instant matter. 4. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit which again rely upon the report of Three Man Alam Committee which found that two sanctioned post of peon in the school were filled up with peons appointed by the State Government. This is the same ground relied upon by the respondent in the case of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra) as it is apparent from perusal of the judgment in the said case. 5. This is the same ground relied upon by the respondent in the case of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra) as it is apparent from perusal of the judgment in the said case. 5. Considering the grounds and reasons available to the petitioner in the instant case at par with that of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra), the instant writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in similar terms to enable the respondent no. 2, Director (Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department (now Department of School Education and Literacy), Government of Jharkhand to take a decision on the petitioner's claim without being inhibited by the Three Man Alam committee report in respect of the petitioner. For better appreciation, operative portion of the judgment passed in the case of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra) is quoted hereunder:- "7. Having considered the relevant material facts pleaded and submissions of the parties, it is evident that despite the fact that the petitioner was found to be appointed by the Managing Committee of the school on 20.12.1983 and was having the educational qualification of 9th Pass and that there were two sanctioned posts of Class-IV employees i.e. of peons in the school in view of the State Government decision contained in letter no. 705 dated 12.10.1982, which is also reflected in the Three Men Alam Committee Report, petitioner has been refused recognition only on the ground that two other persons, who were appointed on compassionate ground by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, have been posted in the school in the year 2002 and 2005 as peons. The posting of two persons on the post of Peon in the year 2002 and 2005 in the school in question pursuant to their appointment by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, should not take away the right of consideration and recognition of the services of a person like the petitioner who was found to be serving in the school since December 1983 i.e. prior to the selection of the school in May 1985. 8. The matter, therefore, requires due consideration and application of mind by the Respondent No. 2 - Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, taking into account the relevant attendant material facts. 8. The matter, therefore, requires due consideration and application of mind by the Respondent No. 2 - Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, taking into account the relevant attendant material facts. Needless to say that the persons, who have been appointed and posted in the school as peons, may not have required any recognition of their services in school in question as their appointment was by a competent authority on the basis of the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee obviously in lieu of the death of the employee/bread earner. In such circumstances, mere posting of these two persons should not come into the way of independent consideration of the claim of the petitioner for recognition of his services in the school in question on the basis of the aforesaid facts. 9. Accordingly, it is felt appropriate that due consideration be accorded to the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and taking into account relevant material attendant facts and observation made herein above by the Respondent No. 2 - Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, within a reasonable time, preferably within twelve weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the findings of the Three Men Alam Committee would not come into the way of the Respondent No. 2 in taking a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions." 6. Petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents including the judgment relied upon by him along with a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of on the basis of observations and directions in similar terms as recorded in the case of Lakhpat Yadav (Supra).