Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Saral Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 112 dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure-3), so far as this petitioner is concerned, issued by Respondent No. 5, whereby the services of this petitioner as Para Teacher whose name appears at Serial No. 4 of the said impugned order and who was posted at Upgraded Primary School, Upper Madjiha has been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by perusing the impugned order it appears that the only ground for termination was that all those persons who were not having the Intermediate pass-certificate would not be allowed to continue as Para Teachers in the respective schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention towards Annexure 5 series, from which it clearly transpires that the petitioner was having a valid Intermediate pass-certificate in the year 2007 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this court towards Annexure 6, from which it appears that there was a precondition that all those Para Teachers who were not having Intermediate pass-certificate on or after 30th June, 2008, they would not be entitled to continue as Para Teachers and their services would be terminated forthwith. He further draws attention to Annexure 7, which is the office order of Jharkhand Academic Council, which is the regulatory body up till 12th standard and from the said office order it transpires that the Council has recognized the ‘Madhyama’ certificate of the “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan similar to Intermediate certificate.” By referring to all these letters annexed with the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authority has acted arbitrarily by not considering the certificate of “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag” and terminated the petitioner because admittedly the certificate of the petitioner was of the year 2007 and as per the letters of the respondent Department, decision was taken in the year 2008 that all those Para Teachers who are not having intermediate pass certificate will be terminated accordingly. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2012 filed by one Sita Ram Manjhi, who was similarly situated person and his name appears in Serial No. 1 of the impugned order (Annexure 3) and the said appeal was decided in favour of the said appellant-Sita Ram Manjhi. 4. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2012 filed by one Sita Ram Manjhi, who was similarly situated person and his name appears in Serial No. 1 of the impugned order (Annexure 3) and the said appeal was decided in favour of the said appellant-Sita Ram Manjhi. 4. Learned counsel for the State reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner has certainly cleared the intermediate certificate in the year 2007 and from Annexure 7, it further transpires that Jharkhand Academic Council has accepted the ‘Madhyama’ certificate of the “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan” Prayag, from where the petitioner has completed his intermediate examination in 2007 itself. It also appears that similarly situated Para Teacher-Sita Ram Manjhi approached this court for the same said relief and this court in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2012 has decided the issue in favour of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2012 is reproduced as under: “..........The stand of the respondent is contrary to the order dated 01.11.2008 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the persons, who have enhanced their educational qualification by June, 2008 and whose services have already been terminated, even those persons may be taken back in the service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that petitioner should have been taken back in the service provided, his educational qualification is as per prescribed qualification of the respondent authorities. Another ground taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has obtained the certificate of Intermediate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelar, Allahabad, whose degree has not been recognized by the State. The State has placed on record the order dated 27.3.2004. A bare perusal of the order will show that this order relates to only for Teachers’ Training Courses and not to other courses. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant is fully justified in submitting that only Teachers’ Training Degree Course is governed by the recognition of National Council For Teachers’ Education (N.C.T.E.) and for certificate of Intermediate course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, there is no need for recognition by NCTE. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant is fully justified in submitting that only Teachers’ Training Degree Course is governed by the recognition of National Council For Teachers’ Education (N.C.T.E.) and for certificate of Intermediate course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, there is no need for recognition by NCTE. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant further submitted that even Jharkhand Academic Council vide its letter dated 28.08.2010 clearly conveyed that the degree of Madhyma given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent degree to the Intermediate as well as (+2) course. In view of the above reasons, the stand of the State cannot be justified on this ground also. Hence, this L.P.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 is set aside. The writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in service without any delay after verification of his certificate.” 6. After going through the order passed by the Division Bench of this court, there is no two opinions that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order as contained in Letter No. 112 dated 24.5.2008 (Annexure-3) is, hereby, quashed and set aside, so far as it relates to the petitioner, who was at Serial No. 4 in the impugned order (Annexure 3). The Respondent No. 4 is directed to look into the matter and reinstate the petitioner by giving all consequential reliefs legally admissible to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ application is allowed and disposed of.