Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 265 (JHR)

Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-31

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent no.6 on the post of Para Teacher for the Village School (Rajkiya Meddle School, Singhpur) P.S. Bhawnathpur in the district of Garhwa and for direction upon the respondents to cancel the selection of respondent no.6 and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in post of Para Teacher for the aforesaid school as per the condition laid down in the advertisement and circular. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuant to advertisement published in the local daily news paper on 14.09.2006 regarding the selection for the post of Para Teacher in different schools of Garhwa District. The petitioner applied for the post of Para Teachers for the Village School (Rajkiya Meddle School Singhpur) Village Singhpur P.S. Bhawnathpur in the district of Garhwa before the concerned authority. After Aam Sabha was held and panel was prepared on 10.01.2006 and since, respondent no.6 has been selected, the petitioner being aggrieved by the selection of respondent no.6 has approached this Court in the instant writ application for redressal of his grievance. 3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the selection of respondent no.6 has been done in violation of Article 14, 16, 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the petitioner''s case has not been considered subjecting him to hostile discrimination. 4. Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 wherein it has been interalia submitted that the proceeding of the Gram Siksha Samiti meeting dated 04.01.2007 indicates only 3 candidates, namely, Ram Kumar Ram, Anuj Kumar Singh and Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary were present and participated in the meeting. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the said proceeding of meeting dated 04.01.2007. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is not acceptable as he was not present in the meeting of the Gram Sabha on 04.01.2007. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the writ application. 5. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is not acceptable as he was not present in the meeting of the Gram Sabha on 04.01.2007. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit has assiduously submitted that the petitioner does not have any justifiable claim so as to warrant interference by this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner was not present in the Gram Sabha on the date of selection. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the case of the petitioner could not have been considered by the respondents. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 more or less has adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has submitted that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is not maintainable. In view of the fact that Village Education Committee which is the main selection authority should have been impleaded as a party. Due to non-impletion of necessary party, the writ petition is hit by non-joinder of party. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede the prayer of the petitioner in view of the categorical submissions made in paragraph-6 of the counteraffidavit. 8. Viewed thus, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.