Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1510 (JHR)

Vinay Murmu v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-11

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary, which is due since 06.01.2008 and further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that as there was no primary school within 2 KM radius of Rajpara Tola of village Sudrakhipur, the villagers made an application before the Block Education Extension Officer, who directed the C.R.P to submit report within 24 hours. Accordingly, it is averred that report dated 03.01.2008 was submitted and basing on such report and direction, the villagers of Rajpara unanimously decided to open a Upgraded Primary School and further selected President, Vice President and Members of the Village Education Committee. Thereafter, on 06.01.2008, the Village Education Committee unanimously selected petitioners as Para Teachers in the newly created Upgraded Primary School, Rajpara Tola. It has further been averred that the petitioners made application/representation before the Member of Parliament for recommendation in the post of Para Teacher, who forwarded their application to District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara. It has further been averred that the D.S.E., Jamtara vide letter dated 17.11.2011 directed the BEEO, Kundahit to make enquiry and submit report regarding the same, but, the BEEO did not submit any report and sat tight over the matter. 3. Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been appointed by duly constituted Village Education Committee and since after their appointment i.e. 06.01.2008 they have discharged their duty in Upgraded Primary School, Rajpara. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners possess all the qualifications of being appointed on the post in question and they have duly been appointed by the Village Education Committee but without any rhyme and reason, the authorities are not releasing their salary/honorarium. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioners possess all the qualifications of being appointed on the post in question and they have duly been appointed by the Village Education Committee but without any rhyme and reason, the authorities are not releasing their salary/honorarium. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel I appearing for the respondents-State referring to Annexure A to the counter affidavit, which is a report submitted by BEEO to D.S.E., Jamtara, submitted that before year 2011 no Primary School was run by the Government but here the petitioners claim salary/honorarium since 06.01.2008 i.e. from the date even when the school was not in existence as per the record of the department. It has further been submitted that in the said report it has further been averred that the petitioners were never selected by the Department nor their names were ever recommended for selection on the post in question. It has further been submitted that in the report, it has further been submitted by BEEO that he never ordered for opening of school and the petitioners by misguiding the villagers held Aam sabha, who recommended their names, which has no value in the eye of law. 6. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the pleading available on record and on close scrutiny of documents available on record, it is amply clear that from the date the petitioners are claiming salary/honorarium, the school itself was not in existence. From perusal of record, it further appears that no chit of paper has been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim that school was in existence by the order of Department since 2008. Mere annexing minutes of Aam Sabha/Village Education Committee or the fact that the petitioners possess all requisite qualification of being selected as Para Teacher are not sufficient to prove the fact that the petitioners are entitled to get the salary/honorarium for the period aforesaid. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, more particularly the fact that the school itself was not in existence as per the record of the Department/Government, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.