Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2009 (JHR)

Alok Kumar Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-22

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to approve and confirm the appointment as a teacher in the Rajiv Gandhi's Project Girls High School, Maheshpur, Pakur. The facts as has been averred in the writ application, in nutshell is that the petitioner no. 1 has been working as Clerk and other petitioners have been working as teachers in Mathematic, History and English respectively in Rajiv Gandhi's Project Girl's High School, Maheshpur, Pakur as evident from inspection report issued vide memo dated 20.6.2001 by District Education Officer, Pakur and the names of the petitioners have been shown at serial nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the list of the employees as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ application that Rajiv Gandhi's Project Girl's High School was established in 1984-85 with the approval of the Department of Education, Government of Bihar and the Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 27.8.1993 has circulated a list of Project Girls High Schools which are running with the approval of the Government and the name of the Rajiv Gandhi Project Girls High School stand at Serial No. 111 in the district erstwhile Sahebganj presently Pakur district as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. It has been contended in the writ application that there is dispute between petitioners' school and school of respondent no. 6 and the District Education Officer, Pakur vide report dated 20.9.2001 submitted an enquiry report whereas it has been reported that the petitioners' school is genuine school being established with the approval of the Department and the school of the respondent no. 6 is running on paper only vide Annexure-7 to the writ application and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur on the direction of respondent no. 4 has held an enquiry by submitting a report vide letter dated 10.2.2002 with the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur submitting that the respondent no. 5 is the genuine school and should be given recognition. Since, services of the petitioners were not approved nor confirmed, the petitioners submitted representation vide Annexure-11 dated 28.6.2006 ventilating their grievances. 4 has held an enquiry by submitting a report vide letter dated 10.2.2002 with the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur submitting that the respondent no. 5 is the genuine school and should be given recognition. Since, services of the petitioners were not approved nor confirmed, the petitioners submitted representation vide Annexure-11 dated 28.6.2006 ventilating their grievances. Since, the representation submitted by the petitioners did not evoke any response, the petitioners left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy have knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in not approving the services of the petitioners amount to illegal and arbitrary exercise of power being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Controverting the averment made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted that the Three Men Committee has submitted the report regarding the validity of services of the employees of Project High School (1984-85 Phase). It is clearly mentioned in the report that the said school has been neither selected by the Department directly nor mentioned in the departmental letter dated 12.2.1985. The Alam Committee also found that there is no information regarding selection of the school by the District Level Three Men Committee constituted by the department vide letter dated 23.2.1985. Finally, the Alam Committee did not recommend for recognition of the school and on that ground did not consider the recognition of the services of teacher and non-teaching staffs as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the names of teaching and non-teaching staff as stated in the Alam Committee Report do not bear the name of petitioners and therefore, the claim of the petitioners to be the teaching and non-teaching staff is completely devoid of any merit. 4. Learned J.C. to S.C. V for the respondents-State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit and has assiduously submitted that in view of the categorical statements made in the counter-affidavit and also Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, the prayer of the petitioners does not merit consideration. 5. 4. Learned J.C. to S.C. V for the respondents-State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit and has assiduously submitted that in view of the categorical statements made in the counter-affidavit and also Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, the prayer of the petitioners does not merit consideration. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners, in view of the categorical submissions supported by report made in the counter-affidavit. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the writ application, I.A. No. 987 of 2007 also stands disposed of.