Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2704 (JHR)

Md Samim Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-12-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue reappointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Teacher-cumsecretary under N.P.S (New Utkarmit) Primary School, Birajpur in place of respondent no. 5. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that pursuant to the decision made in Aam Sabha the petitioner was selected on the post in question but the respondents-officials illegally selected respondent no. 5 in his place. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities but it did not evoke any response, which constrained the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Government circular and law laid down by this Hon''ble Court, Aam Sabha (Village Education Committee) is the competent authority to select the candidate on the post of Para Teacher and the petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria was selected and was discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. But, when the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.04.2010 before the D.C., Deoghar leveling charge of demand of bribery against the chairman of the Committee, a conspiracy was plotted against him which culminated to termination of the petitioner. Thereafter, honorarium was not paid to the petitioner despite submission of several written requests by him to the authorities concerned. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that while the petitioner was engaged as Para Teacher, there were charge of irregularities and his work was found below the satisfaction level; hence he was reprimanded but he did not mend his ways of working and finally his engagement was cancelled and another para teacher was handed over the charge of Secretary. It has further been submitted that the petitioner worked till December, 2008 and had already received the Mandey (honorarium) till that period and thereafter his engagement was cancelled due to his misdeeds and corrupt practices. Hence, from January, 2009 he is not a Para Teacher of the said school; as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. It has further been submitted that the petitioner worked till December, 2008 and had already received the Mandey (honorarium) till that period and thereafter his engagement was cancelled due to his misdeeds and corrupt practices. Hence, from January, 2009 he is not a Para Teacher of the said school; as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that initially the petitioner was selected as Para Teacher, for some indiscipline/irregularities his engagement was cancelled in December, 2008 and in his place new Para Teacher was appointed who is working with utmost satisfaction to the authorities concerned. From perusal of letter dated 19.12.2011 of Block Education Extension Officer, Polijori it appears that on the issue of some irregularities/unsatisfactory work done by the petitioner the village Education Committee discharged him from the post of Para Teacher and in his place another person was appointed. Hence, in the case at hand neither there is any procedural irregularity in dispensing with the services of the petitioner nor any other material has been placed before this Court so as to warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ application, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.