Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 96 (JHR)

Baijnath Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : I.A. No. 2539 of 2016 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay of 35 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal through I.A. No. 2539 of 2016. 2. Having considered the reasons stated in the instant petition and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, delay in preferring the memo of appeal is accordingly allowed. I.A. No. 2539 of 2016 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 212 of 2016 : 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the main Memo of Appeal. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 1473 of 2008 whereby the writ petition was disposed of. Briefly stated that appellant being aggrieved by cancellation of his contract as para teacher in Up-graded Primary School, Syed Bazar, Raj Mahal vide office order dated 05.06.2007 bearing Memo No. 526 issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Sahebganj, had approached the Writ Court. 5. As per the case of the petitioner/appellant, he was engaged as para teacher in the school in question on 02.06.2003 and continued to discharge his duty to the satisfaction of the authorities. On 04.01.2006, the private respondent was selected by the Aam Sabha held in the village for the post of Assistant Para Teacher. Since the appellant failed to abide the instruction of the respondent authorities as contained in letter dated 19.03.2007, the respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj proceeded to cancel the contract of the petitioner itself. 6. Learned Single Judge considered the case of the parties and also the stand of the respondent brought through the counter affidavit and came to a conclusion that the cancellation of the petitioner's engagement was made on the recommendation of Block Education Officer-cum-President Block Level Education Committee, Rajmahal. That the respondent had also brought on record that two posts in the said school had later on being filled up, therefore, there was no vacancy for the post of teacher in the said school. Nine years had also elapsed since the cancellation of said contract. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent that if in future any selection is made and petitioner comes within the zone of consideration, his case can be considered in view of his previous experience as para teacher. 7. Nine years had also elapsed since the cancellation of said contract. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent that if in future any selection is made and petitioner comes within the zone of consideration, his case can be considered in view of his previous experience as para teacher. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of cancellation was in teeth of the principle of natural justice and without proper proceeding in the eye of law. More over, no action has been taken against the Village Education Committee, which was also instructed to ensure the joining of the newly selected para teacher/private respondent herein. The guilt of the appellant was never established by any proper enquiry. The appellant has therefore, suffered in the eye of law without any opportunity of defending himself. 8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material on record including the impugned order. From perusal of the pleadings in the Memo of Appeal itself, it is clear that prior to issuance of order of cancellation, both the appellant and the Village Education Committee had received instruction from the Block Education Extension Officer in relation to non-joining of the private respondent. The appellant had also responded to it vide Annexure-7 of the Memo of Appeal. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj proceeded to cancel the contract of the petitioner on the recommendation of Block Level Education Committee on the very ground that the appellant had failed to permit the newly Assistant Para Teacher to join in the school in question. Communication dated 16.10.2006 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Raj Mahal, Annexure-3 to the Memo of Appeal also goes to show that the appellant had failed to permit joining to the private respondent despite instruction to that effect. It can also be observed that during the interregnum of almost 10 years by now, not only those two posts have been filled up as per the case of the official respondent but new Rules have been framed in the light of the NCTE guidelines for appointment in the primary school. An incumbent is required not only to have Teacher Training Qualification but also qualify Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for being appointed as a teacher in the primary school. 9. An incumbent is required not only to have Teacher Training Qualification but also qualify Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for being appointed as a teacher in the primary school. 9. In the background of discussion made and for the reasons stated above, we, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order warranting any interference in Appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.