Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 83 (JHR)

Subhash Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the letter dated 29.3.2008 issued by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher has been terminated with effect from date of appointment and for direction to the respondents to make payment of honorarium for the period from 1.4.2006 to till date and for direction to the respondents not to make any recovery from the honorarium paid to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts as has been averred in the writ application is that in pursuance of meeting of the Gram Sabha, Murpa, Gola, Ramgarh which has been held on 12.05.2003 for appointment on the post of Para Teacher in Government Middle School, Murpa, Gola, Ramgarh and the petitioner was placed at serial No.6 of the select list. The intimation to this effect was also given in the office of the respondent No. 4 by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. In pursuant to the said selection, the petitioner joined on the post of Para Teachers and continued to discharge the duties assigned to him. While continuing as such another resolution dated 18.12.2003 has been passed by the Gram Sabha for making payment of honorarium to the petitioner and other candidates working as Para Teachers. The petitioner has been paid honorarium for the period from 16.5.2003 to 31.3.2006 but thereafter to the utter surprise, no honorarium has been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, to the' utter consternation, the order of termination has been issued under the signature of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application which is impugned in this application. Vide impugned order, the petitioner was directed to make deposit of the honorarium which was received by him. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authority. Due to inaction of the respondents and being aggrieved by the impugned. order, the petitioner has been constrained to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Abhljeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities without complying the principle of natural justice have terminated the services of the petitioner which is not justified being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Abhljeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities without complying the principle of natural justice have terminated the services of the petitioner which is not justified being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the direction of respondents so far as recovery of the payment of admissible honorarium already paid to the petitioner could not have been passed without following the principle of natural justice moreover the petitioner has worked for the said period so the direction by the respondents for the recovery of honorarium for the period in which the petitioner worked, i.e., from 16.5.2003 to 31.3.2006 cannot be legally justified. 4. Repudiating the assertions made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that in the meeting held on 12.5.2003 of Village Education Committee some applications for appointment against the post of Para Teachers were considered and recommendation made for appointment as Para Teacher to the following candidates : Name of the Candidate Father's Name Qualification 1 Ayub Ansari Sri Abdul Hasid Ansari M.A. 2 Dev Kishore Sao Sri. Jivan Sao B. Com. 3 Madhusudan Gupta Sri Harlidhar Mahto LA. 4 Bhupendra Mehta Sri Fagu Mahto Matric 5 Budhan Soren Sri Binod Soren LA. 6 Subhash Kumar Gupta Sri Haldhar Sao I. Com. From the original proceeding dated 12.5.2003 of the Gram Shiksha Samiti it clearly appears that the name of the petitioner Subhash Kumar Gupta has been inserted later on and so the script of the proceeding writer differs. 5. Another counter-affidavit dated 20.11.2017 has been filed by the respondent No.5, Le., District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sanra Siksha Abhiyan, Ramgarh wherein the earlier assertions has been reiterated. It has further been submitted that the complaint received against the petitioner was discussed in the meeting. of the Village Education Committee held on 18.12;2007 and it was decided by the Village Education Committee on 9.1.2008 that the petitioner will not be allowed to work further in the school as per Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit. In pursuance of order dated 1.11.2017, learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondent -State produced the original records and on perusal of the same, the manipulation of proceeding of the Village Education Committee appeared to be quite apparent. 6. Mr. In pursuance of order dated 1.11.2017, learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondent -State produced the original records and on perusal of the same, the manipulation of proceeding of the Village Education Committee appeared to be quite apparent. 6. Mr. Ravi Kerketta. learned J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents-State has submitted that since the petitioner is beneficiary for the manipulation/interpolation of the proceeding held in the Village Education Committee. he cannot derive any advantage out of the same and therefore, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements stated here in below :- (I) Though, initially the petitioner selected for the post of Para Teachers in view of the meeting dated 12.5.2003 of the Village Education Committee but five persons were selected the name of the petitioner was inserted later on and the handwriting script differs so far as serial No.6 compared to serial Nos. 1 to 5 is concerned. When the discrepancy was brought to the notice of the respondents.the services of the petitioner has been terminated. So there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Since, the petitioner was allowed to continue for the post. of Para Teachers from 16.5.2003 to 31.3.2006, since he discharged his duties for the said period, no recovery for the said period can be legally permissible. (II) On perusal of the impugned order, the direction is of two fold :- First direction that the order of termination has been passed and second that the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of honorarium, which has been paid to him failing which, FIR, would be lodged. So far as. second part of the impugned order is concerned, it would not be legally tenable to recover the amount of honorarium for the said period on which the petitioner had worked. Therefore. this Court feels to inclined for interfere with the second part of the order and so far as order of termination is concerned the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Therefore. this Court feels to inclined for interfere with the second part of the order and so far as order of termination is concerned the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. In view of the submissions made in the forgoing paragraphs and as logical sequitur to the said reasoning. the second part of the impugned order with regard to deposit of honorarium received by petitioner being not legally sustainable is quashed and set aside. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed in part. Petition partly allowed.