Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1268 (JHR)

Arvind Sah v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-26

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 13.02.2004 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application and has further prayed for direction to the respondents to appoint on the post of teacher in any of the Primary schools. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher on 01.06.1983 by the District Superintendent of Education, but his services were terminated alongwith other teachers on 14.07.1986. The petitioner and other similarly placed teachers who were removed from services had moved upto Hon'ble Apex Court and in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Education Department (vide Annexure-1) invited application from those teachers who had been removed from services. Consequently, the petitioner applied for appointment to that post in prescribed form on 22.03.1991 and appeared at the Interview Board for selection to the said post on 27.04.1991. The petitioner also appeared in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj thereafter, the provisional, panel was published. Inspite of name in the provisional penal since the appointment order was not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C No. 7415 of 1997, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23rd September, 2002 with a direction to the respondents i.e. District Superintendent of Education, Pakur to examine the matter and dispose of the petition within a period of two months and further direction that if District Superintendent of Education, Pakur finds the application of the petitioner and if received then to allow the petitioner to join the post and in pursuance to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the order vide Annexure-14 has been passed vide order dated 13.02.2004 which is impugned in this writ application. 3. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioner has been moving from pillar to post, thereby has been subjected to irretrievable injustice. 4. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. 3. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioner has been moving from pillar to post, thereby has been subjected to irretrievable injustice. 4. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. The respondent No. 4 in the counter-affidavit, stated that in pursuance to the order dated 27.12.2002 of the District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, the then District Superintendent of Education, Pakur enquired the matter on 20.02.2003 in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj and found that no/any document is available there and the name of the petitioner is not included in Final Panel waiting list. In such circumstances, the then District Superintendent of Education, Pakur rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. 5. Mr. Shanid Kaushal, learned J.C to A.A.G for the respondent-State has more or less reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has tried to defend the impugned order vide Annexure-14 by submitting that since the name of the petitioner does not find place in the final select list and the application was not found, therefore, rightly the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur vide order dated 06.03.2003 has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State further submits that due to efflux of time even the petitioner would have either retired or on the verge of retirement, had he joined the post. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the final select list as disclosed in the impugned order vide Annexure-14 to the writ petition, no illegality or impropriety has been done by the respondents so as to warrant interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.