Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1852 (JHR)

Jay Prakash Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
ORDER : Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned A.C. to G.A. appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, as his name has been recommended by the Block Education Committee on 04.04.2008 for the post of Para-teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Ghaghra. 3. The brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner having the qualification of Intermediate in Arts, has applied for the post of Para-teacher alongwith other eligible candidates. A general body meeting was convened on 11.03.2008 by the Gram Siksha Samittee in the Upgraded Primary School, Ghaghra for appointment of para-teachers, but, to the utter consternation of the petitioner, one Dindayal Manjhi was selected by the Gram Siksha Samittee for the post in question. With regard to the selection of the said Dindayal Manjhi, the villagers made a complaint that the said Dindayal Manjhi was the brother of the Secretary of the High School and the relative of the Vice President of the Selection Committee. Though, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Block Level Committee, but, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. Being 2 aggrieved by the non-appointment, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure-7, which appears to have fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that though the name of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Block Level Committee, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, no appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, though, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed for the post of Para-Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Ghaghra. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner on the post in question, smacks of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner on the post in question, smacks of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein, it has been contended that the Village Education Committee is the competent authority to select the petitioner as para-teacher, but the petitioner has never been selected by the said Committee, which is essential as per the selection norms of the para-teacher. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents, stating, therein that as per the report of the Block Education Extension Officer, Jama, Dindayal Manjhi is not working in the Upgraded Primary School, Ghaghra, rather, one Sri Shyamdayal Manjhi, the only Para-teacher is working in the above noted School, as evident from Annexure-B to the said supplementary counter affidavit. 7. In pursuance to the query made by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2018, a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents dated 13.08.2018 has been filed, wherein, it has been submitted that there are two posts of para-teacher at Upgraded Primary School, Ghaghra and one Sri Shyamdayal Manjhi is working as Para-Teacher in one post and the second post is vacant in the said School. It has further been submitted that the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Human Resource Development has directed vide Memo dated 04.06.2012 as no teacher/para teacher/other teacher will be selected without passing the TET Examination and an applicant, who has passed I.A./I.Sc. and is trained, will be eligible for sitting in the TET Examination for Class I to V. 8. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) Admittedly his case was recommended by the Block Level Committee, but the Village Education Committee is the competent authority to select the Para-teachers and the petitioner has never been selected as Para-teacher by the Village Education Committee. (ii) It is a settled proposition of law that the recommendation does not give any indefeasible right for appointment/selection. (ii) It is a settled proposition of law that the recommendation does not give any indefeasible right for appointment/selection. (iii) Admittedly, as disclosed from the counter affidavit, one post of para-teacher is still vacant and because of the pendency of the writ application, perhaps no process of selection has been initiated to fill up the post in question. In the meantime, by virtue of promulgation of Right to Education Act, a teachers having qualified the TET examination is eligible to be selected for the post of para-teacher as per the Resolution, which has also been reiterated in the Government Circular of Jharkhand, Department of Human Resources Development, dated 04.06.2012, but the petitioner is neither trained nor TET qualified. 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.