Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 165 (JHR)

Noor Islam v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, whereby and whereunder, the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of para-teacher has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for grant of similar relief as the other similarly situated persons are getting in the other districts of State of Jharkhand. 3. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that in view of notification dated 29.01.2010, the petitioner and other candidates submitted their application before the Aam Sabha for the appointment to the post of Para Teacher (Science) and said Aam Sabha has duly recommended the name of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of para-teacher (Science). Thereafter, in spite of the essential selection and recommendation in favour of the petitioner, his candidature was not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred writ application before this Hon''ble High Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 5409 of 2010 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 04.01.2011 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of para-teacher. In compliance thereof, the respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner by giving of reference letter No. 1749 dated 30.03.2010 issued by the Secretary, Human Resources Department -cum-Director State Project, Jharkhand Education Project, Ranchi that the selection procedure for the post of para-teacher had been cancelled. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has further made reference of order passed by the same authority dated 01.07.2010 wherein, it has been ordered that the person, who are not trained, are not entitled to be appointed for the post of para-teacher. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has not considered the essential facts that similarly situated candidates have been appointed in various blocks after being recommended by the Aam Sabha and after getting an opportunity by the respondents to undergo essential training. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation on 29.01.2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur for redressal of his grievances, which was rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of the case but the same has not been considered till date. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation on 29.01.2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur for redressal of his grievances, which was rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of the case but the same has not been considered till date. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner had been recommended by the Village Education Committee before 01.04.2010 and as such, new Act is not applicable in the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have stayed the appointment process of para-teachers in view of the letter dated 30.03.2010 issued by the Secretary, Humar Resources Department-cum-Director State Project, Ranchi with regard to the candidates, who were selected and recommended on or after 30.03.2010 but the petitioner has been selected and recommended by Aam Sabha on 29.01.2010 itself and also recommend by the Block Education Extension Officer, Pakur on 25.03.2010 and as such, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was selected and recommendation was made in his favour prior to the direction dated 30.03.2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner was selected prior to the direction dated 30.03.2010 but neither he was appointed to the post of para-teacher nor any opportunity has been given to him to undergo the essential training for appointment for the same. The joining of similarly situated Para Teachers had already been accepted in many districts of the State of Jharkhand prior to the direction dated 30.03.2010 and as such, petitioner could not has been denied the same which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have already been decided by this Hon''ble Court in its judgment delivered on 18.01.2018 in W.P.(S) No.5343 of 2012 & other analogous cases and since the Hon''ble Court has dismissed the said writ application, this case may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No. 5343 of 2012 & other analogous cases. Learned counsel further submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Som Nath Roy and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 869 of 2014 and the said writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2014 with an observation that nonconsideration of para-teachers cannot be said to be irrational or the orders cannot be said to have been passed in perverse manner. Similar view has been reiterated in L.P.A. No. 306 of 2014 and other analogous cases. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and going through records of the case and orders passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Merely recommendations of the petitioner for appointment does not create a feasible right for appointment. Merely because a candidate is selected, it does not acquire absolute rights for appointment. It is open to the Government to make appointment or not, even if there is any vacancy. It is not incumbent upon the Government to fill-up the same. Admittedly, the appointing authorities must give reasonable explanation for appointment. In the instant case, reasons have been duly assigned that as case of the petitioner was not approved by the competent authorities, the appointment could not have been said to be valid in law. As the petitioner was not appointed following the procedures and in accordance with law, he was not entitled for any honorarium. The legal rights to claim honorarium would flow only if appointment is finally confirmed by the district authorities in terms of the guidelines issued by the Jharkhand Education Project Counsel for appointment of Para Teachers. The fact that this requirement was not fulfilled, is not in dispute. The petitioner has also not enclosed any appointment letter in respect of the schools in which he claims to have been appointed. In absence of aforesaid legal requirements, no sanctity to his selection can be attached. In view of irregularities and illegalities committed by the officers, such selection was not approved by the competent authorities. The admitted fact is that even after selection and recommendation by the village level committee, right does not accrue to the petitioner to get appointment. In absence of aforesaid legal requirements, no sanctity to his selection can be attached. In view of irregularities and illegalities committed by the officers, such selection was not approved by the competent authorities. The admitted fact is that even after selection and recommendation by the village level committee, right does not accrue to the petitioner to get appointment. The orders passed in the case of Som Nath Roy and others and other analogous cases, W.P.(S) No. 5343 of 2012 & other analogous cases as well as the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 306 of 2014 and other analogous cases, it has been clearly held that with effect from 1st April, 2010, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been brought into force. As per this Act, National Council for Teachers'' Education (NCTE) is prescribed authority and now the Teachers'' Eligibility Test (TET) as well as B.Ed. is made compulsory for such appointments. 7. In view of aforesaid facts and reasons as well as in light of similar issues decided by this Court as mentioned hereinabove and affirmed by the Division Bench, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition as the same is devoid of merit. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.