Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1787 (JHR)

Bihari Lal Pandit v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-08

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint him as Para Teacher of Upgraded Primary School Village Bande Nechetola and for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 09.02.2006 pertaining to the appointment of respondent no.6. 2. The brief facts as has been disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner having Intermediate Science qualification and belonging to the same Tola where the school is situated, has been ignored by the Aam Sabha whereas respondent no.6 having Intermediate Arts qualification has been selected by the respondents. The respondent nos.6 to 8 have been appointed as Para Teachers in the Upgraded Primary School Bande Neche Tola by respondent no.3 ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondent no.3 in selecting the respondent nos.6 to 8 as Para Teachers, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, in illegal and arbitrary manner, selected the respondent no.6 as Para Teachers even though his qualification was Intermediate Arts and petitioner having Science qualification has been ignored and this pick and choose method adopted by the respondent no.3 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except the petitioner none of the Para Teachers namely respondent nos.6 to 8 were having Science qualification but to the utter misfortune the case of the petitioner has been overlooked with avowed object to extend favour to respondent nos.6 to 8. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the power to appoint Para Teacher against sanctioned unit is vested in Gram Shiksha Sammittee. At present there is no vacancy against the sanctioned unit of Para Teacher in N.P.S. Bandey. Therefore, the question of selection of the petitioner does not arise. 5. Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 12.09.2017 has been filed by respondent no.3 wherein it has been submitted that E.G.S. Sukhbadiya having one sanctioned post of Para Teacher merged in N.P.S. Bandey, pursuant to the order contained in letter dated 09.02.2006. Therefore, the question of selection of the petitioner does not arise. 5. Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 12.09.2017 has been filed by respondent no.3 wherein it has been submitted that E.G.S. Sukhbadiya having one sanctioned post of Para Teacher merged in N.P.S. Bandey, pursuant to the order contained in letter dated 09.02.2006. After merger N.P.S. Bandey allowed two sanctioned unit of Para Teachers and out of two one was selected by the Village Education Committee Bandey and one Para Teacher working in E.G.S. Sukhbadiya allowed to work as second Para Teacher. It is obvious that there is no vacancy as such, petitioner could not be selected. It has further been submitted that after merger of E.G.S. Sukhbadiya in N.P.S. Bandey, Poshak Area in N.P.S. Bandey enlarged and Poshak Area of E.G.S Sukhbadiya also became Poshak Area of N.P.S Bandey. This fact proves conclusively that there is no illegality in continuation of Purnendu Mangal- respondent no.6 as Para Teachers. Further it has been submitted that the Right to Education Act, 2009 is made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2010 as such Training Qualification with T.E.T Pass is made compulsory for selection of Para Teacher. The petitioner is I.Sc only as such at present he cannot be selected as Para Teacher under law. 6. Another supplementary counter-affidavit dated 26.04.2018 on behalf of the respondents has been filed. Wherein, it has been submitted that E.G.S. Sukhbadiya having one sanctioned and working Para Teacher respondent no.6 merged in N.P.S. Bandey and pursuant to the order contained he joined as 2nd Para Teacher in N.P.S. Bandey as evident from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit. The respondent no.6 has joined and performed his duties which is evident from Annexure-C to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that against sanctioned unit of Para Teacher, the Village Education Committee, Upgraded Primary School, Bandey in its meeting dated 15.09.2004 selected Yogendra Pandit i.e. respondent no.7 as Para Teacher. 7. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit has assiduously submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in selection of respondent nos.6 and 7. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit has assiduously submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in selection of respondent nos.6 and 7. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons: (I) In view of poor student strength, the District Programme Officer, Deoghar vide Annexure-3 directed to merge E.G.S. Sukhbadiya in Upgraded Primary School, Bandey and by virtue of such merger, the respondent no.6 has been allowed to continue as Para Teacher in N.P.S., Bandey and the issue of merger and continuation of respondent no.6 has attained its finality in law. (II) In view of the filling of the post of Para Teacher, no vacancy as such exists and in the absence of any vacancy, the petitioner has no right to claim for any selection. (III) In the meantime, Right to Education Act, 2009 has come into force with effect from 01.04.2010. As per the said Act, Training Qualification with T.E.T pass is made compulsory for selection of Para Teacher. The petitioner is only Intermediate Science and in absence of Training and TET pass, the petitioner is not qualified to be considered for the post of Para Teachers under the existing Act. 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the selection of the respondent no.6 to 8 on the ground that there is no infirmity or illegality in that selection. Resultantly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.