Azharul Islam vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Achinto Sen, J.C. to Sr. S.C. for the respondent State.

The petitioner preferred this writ petition for a direction to reappoint the petitioner as Primary Teacher from the waiting list for the post of Pri-mary

Teachers.

The petitioner asserted that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide appointment letter dated 18.4.1983 and pursuant thereto, petitioner joined

on 27.10.1983. The various appointments were made including the petitioner in the District of old Santhal Pargana which has been later on bifurcated

into five districts namely Dumka, Sahebganj, Deoghar, Godda and finally Pakur and due to different set up of the officers at different time services of

all the persons were terminated including the petitioner, on the basis of a news in local daily news paper in the year 1986. Various per-sons, similarly

situated, filed writ petitions against their termination and orders were passed in C.W.J.C. No. 227 of 1988 and analogous cases, which were decided

on 11.8.1989, wherein it was held that various per-sons including the petitioner, who were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the old

Santhal Pargana and Deoghar districts were not at fault and if there is any mistake in their appointment the authority should invite fresh application for

appointment of the terminated teachers and if they were satisfied with the eligibility condition they should appoint the termi-nated teachers giving them

preference over the other candidates.

Against above order, S.L.P. was filed by the State Government and some of the petitioners also filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the S.L.P.s vide order 07.2.1991 ( Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition) with a direction and

obser-vation that the High Court’s direction to the State to hold a fresh selection has become final against the States inasmuch as the State has not

chal-lenged that order. It was directed that within three months and in any case not beyond 30th June, 1991 the selection process contemplated in the

High Court’s order shall be worked out. In considering the suitability for selec-tion, the Rules which were in force at the time the teachers were

recruited should be taken into account and disqualification shall not be imposed on the basis of any altered Rule. It will also be open for the State to

consider the claim of Teachers who came after the altered Rules in terms of the Rules in force. The bar of age, as per the direction of the High Court

as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, shall not be used against the Teach-ers for their selection.

Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that name of the petitioner is appearing at Serial No. 50 of Annex-ure

8/A to the writ petition, which is a panel prepared pursuant to the order of the High Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court. He submits that at Se-

rial No. 50, name of another person is wrongly inserted, whereas the peti-tioner’s name should have been there.

He has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 9, which is an information sought for under the Right to Information Act and pointed out that at

Column 3, information has been given under the said Act that the person, whose name is appearing at Sr. No. 50 of the aforesaid panel, has informed

the authorities that he has been appointed on the post of Teacher on compassionate ground.

On a query from the Court about the appointment letter of the peti-tioner, the counsel for the petitioner failed to produce any such letter and it appears

that he has also not brought on record the same.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner and a large number of persons were appointed as Assistant Teachers by Shri Bhola Ram,

the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj in the years 1981-82. In the year 1984, it came to the notice of the higher author-ities that those

appointments were not made after following the legal pro-cedures and therefore, services of the said Assistant Teachers were brought to an end. He

further submits that matter moved and travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by different Special Leave Petitions/Civil appeals and Contempt

Petitions from time to time. In pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities reconsidered the cases of all the applicants

who had been appointed in the year 1981-82 and a fresh panel in accordance with law was prepared and published on 25.07.1994 after preparing

district wise and category wise draft panel and after calling and receipts of the objections. A large number of persons, including the petitioner, were

not included in the final panel. After publica-tion of the final panel, the petitioner neither gave any representation or made any claim about non-

inclusion of his name in the final panel made in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in S.L.P. No. 10051/1990 and the

Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7000/1992 and analogous cases nor the petitioner showed any order/di-rection of the

Hon’ble Court or the department for any valid claim made by him just after publication of the final panel.

He further submits that similarly situated teachers of the erstwhile Sahibganj district had moved this Hon’ble Court by filing the writ applica-tion

bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11693/1997(P) and L.P.A. No. 501/2003 but the same had outrightly been rejected and turned down vide order dated

23.08.2004 in view of the fact that the names of those teachers having not been mentioned and further the life of the panel having lapsed after one

year i.e. in the year 1995 and therefore, no appointment can be made from the said panel.

He further submits that petitioner is Izharul Islam whereas the name of the person listed at Serial No. 50 of the panel is Ajfarul Islam, son of Haji

Hussain, Resident of Bhawanipur, Pakur, Santhal Pargana. On these facts, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is not the same

person, who is listed at Serial No. 50 of Annexure 8/A because the petitioner has not produced any document before the authorities to show that it

was he, who was selected earlier. The petitioner has also failed to produce any appointment letter before this court.

Considering all these aspects, this Court finds that no case of inter-ference is made out.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.