Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 427 (JHR)

Md. Anjarul Haque v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-08

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter-alia prayed for quashing the order under Annexures 11 and 12 series pertaining to termination from services. 2. The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that an advertisement was issued in August, 2002 for recruitment of Primary Teachers and the qualification prescribed under the said advertisement was:- (i) An applicant must be citizen of India. (ii) Matric or its equivalent examination passed. (iii) It would be 2 years training course or B.Ed/Dip- in Ed./Dip-in-Teach or C.P.D. The petitioners in response to the said advertisement submitted their applications. Accordingly, the admit cards was issued and the petitioners have appeared in the examination and result was published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and all the petitioners got qualified in the said examination. In pursuance to the selection the petitioners were given provisional appointment letters indicating place of posting. Accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 was posted in Madhya Vidyalaya, Sonadhuni Littipara west, whereas the petitioner no.2 was posted in Middle School, Surajbera, Littipara, East and the petitioner no.3 was posted in Primary School, Saunthia, Littipara, West and the petitioners joined in the said post. After joining, the service book of the petitioners was opened. But to the utter surprise to the petitioners, the respondent no.4 issued show cause as to why the services would not be terminated as they have not obtained two years Teachers’ Training on B.Ed/Dip-in Ed/Dip-in-teach/C.P.D and the petitioners submitted their show cause along with the certificates and documents. Without considering the show cause filed by the petitioners in right prospective respondent no.4 issued order of termination of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners do not possess qualification as per advertisement vide Annexure-11 series and in pursuance thereof the respondent no.4 issued order reliving the petitioners from the post they were holding vide Annexure-12 series. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of termination and reliving orders, the petitioners left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, have approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents vide Annexures-11 and 12 suffer from non-application of mind. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents vide Annexures-11 and 12 suffer from non-application of mind. Since, the respondents were oblivious of the fact that mark-sheet submitted by the petitioners to the authorities does indicate that the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi after conducting the examination and the petitioners having appeared in the said examination obtained Dip-in-Teach training. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before the creation of Jharkhand erstwhile State of Bihar issued order on 24.10.1994 which interalia clarified that the terminology 'trained' means: (i) 2 years teachers training. (ii) B.Ed/Dip-in-Ed. (iii) In service 1 year training. As per the aforesaid order vide Annexure-16 diploma in teaching is one year course is meant for those who are in service. Learned counsel further submits that by misconstruing the advertisement the services of the petitioners have been illegally terminated being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been inter-alia submitted that the petitioners while working under Government of India scheme obtained one year teacher training. But the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi published advertisement and criteria has been fixed as per Jharkhand Primary School Teachers’ Appointment Rule 2002 and Amended Rule 2003 that the candidate must have obtained two years educational training course or B.Ed./Dip-in-Ed./Dip-in-Tech. or CPD. Since it was found that the petitioners have not got two years teachers’ training and they were illegally appointed beyond the provision of Jharkhand Primary School Teacher’s Appointment Rule 2002 and Amended Rule 2003 and for this irregularities, the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi asked show cause from the then D.S.E., Pakur and directed to take necessary steps for terminating the services of all those who have been irregularly appointed teachers and not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to judgment rendered by this Court as reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr) in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to judgment rendered by this Court as reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr) in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, it appears that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that one year training course which is equivalent to two years in Dip-in-teach as per the order of State of Bihar vide Annexure-16. In the counter-affidavit only ground taken is that the petitioners have obtained training while continued in Government of India scheme whether the scheme and that cannot be construed to be training as per the Jharkhand Primary School Appointment Rule 2002 and Amended Rule 2003. Learned counsel for the respondents assiduously submits that the order under Annexure-16 to the writ petition dated 24.10.1994 by the State of Bihar is adopted by the State of Jharkhand as per the provisions of State Reservation, 2000. Therefore, the place of the petitioners ought to have been considered by the respondents so far in service training of one year is concerned. 6. In the instant case, without applying due application of mind, the services have been terminated without following the procedures and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 7. In view of taking into consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case Statutory Rule 2002, no ground has been made out by the respondents to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents vide Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ application. Since, the petitioners do not have requisite qualification of teaching as per the Rule-2(Kha) Rule 2002 and they have obtained in service while under Government of India scheme which cannot be construed to be equivalent teachers training as per order dated 24.10.1994 in the State of Bihar. Therefore, no relief is granted to the petitioners in view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. 8. The writ petition sans merit is dismissed.