Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1855 (JHR)

Vishnu Prasad Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing appointment of private respondent no. 5 as Para Teacher and further prayer has been made to quash order dated 07.03.2012 whereby respondent no. 5 has been appointed as Para Teacher and his joining was accepted and further prayer has been made by the petitioner to appoint him on the post of Para Teacher. 2. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (L &C) for the respondents-State and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for private respondent no. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having qualification of B.A with English and PostGraduate appeared before Gram Shiksha Samiti (Village Education Committee), Madhupur for selection on the post of Para Teacher in Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Ratu Vihar (Madhupur). The committee after finalization of the selection process, recommended the name of six persons for appointment in Grade II category i.e. B.A with English, in which, the name of the petitioner were placed at serial no. 3 despite the fact that he was the only candidate with a degree of Post Graduate. It has further been submitted that in spite of the fact, that the petitioner possessed the higher qualification, he was denied appointment and illegally selected respondent no. 5 as Para Teacher by the Village Education Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State stating therein that the appointment of the private respondent is kept in abeyance but by impugned order dated 07.03.2012, the private respondent no. 5 was appointed as Para Teacher, subject to final outcome of the writ application, as mentioned in Clause 7 of impugned order dated 07.03.2012. Hence, cancelling the illegal appointment of private respondent, petitioner may be appointed on the post of Para Teacher in said School. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision rendered in the case of Kumar Arun Anuj Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 912 of 2010, submitted that in a similar matter, the Hon''ble Court after quashing the letter of appointment of private respondent directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Para Teacher. 6. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 912 of 2010, submitted that in a similar matter, the Hon''ble Court after quashing the letter of appointment of private respondent directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Para Teacher. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that as per guidelines contained in letter dated 22.12.2003, the Gram Shiksha Samitti is the autonomous body and it has final say in selection of Para Teacher. Furthermore, the Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi vide letter dated 01.07.2010 made it clear that Right to Education Act, 2009 made applicable in the State of Jharkhand w.e.f 01.04.2010 and minimum required qualification for selection for appointment on the post of Para Teacher is Intermediate trained. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the required qualification, hence, now no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 submitted that petitioner did not appear before the Gram Shiksha Samittee in its meeting dated 18.09.2009. Further, as per the guidelines contained in letter dated 22.12.2003 of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the Gram Shiksha Samitti is final authority, hence no interference can be made out. Referring to letter dated 01.07.2010, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 further submitted that w.e.f 01.04.2010, the minimum qualification required for selection of Para Teacher is Intermediate trained, which the petitioner did not possess. However, after selection of the respondent no. 5, he got diploma in elementary education at National Institution of Open Schooling for Training by the respondents-authorities, accordingly he became trained and he is discharging his duties with full satisfaction of the authorities concerned. 8. From the pleadings available on record, there is no iota of doubt that at the relevant point of time i.e. at the time of appointment process, the petitioner had the higher qualification than that of private respondent no. 5. Furthermore, from bare perusal of letter dated 08.06.2005 and letter dated 23.04.2008, it is crystal clear that on the post in question, the minimum qualification was graduate and there was clear stipulation in Clause (Kha) of letter dated 08.06.2005, describing minimum qualification, that higher qualification candidates shall be given preference in selection on the post of Para Teachers. Furthermore, it is also admitted fact that at that time, the certificate of teachers'' training was not mandatory. 9. Furthermore, it is also admitted fact that at that time, the certificate of teachers'' training was not mandatory. 9. From perusal of impugned order dated 07.03.2012, in particular Clause 7, it appears that the respondents-authorities were also not oblivious of the fact narrated above hence though for smooth functioning of the school they have approved the recommendation of the Village Education Committee but made it subject to outcome of the writ application. 10. It is admitted fact that power was vested with the Village Education Committee for making appointment on the post in question but that does not give it unbridled or uncanalised power to make appointment de hors the Rules; hence recommendations of Village Education cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. Rule of Law cannot be given a complete go by and no one is above the Rule of Law. 11. As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 07.03.2012, so far respondent no. 5 is concerned, is quashed and set aside. The respondents-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of petitioner on the post in question, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.