Chaturanan Rout vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in WP(S) No.6011 of 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant claiming payment of honorarium for the period he had worked as Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Khaspalak, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for the same relief in WP(S) No.5877 of 2009, in which, the counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State, stating as follows:-

"6. That subsequently to comply the order and direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar passed in Misc. Case No.04 of 2007, the Village Education Committee, Upgraded Primary School, Khaspalak, Mohanpur is reconstituted on 21.11.2008, in which Shri Bishweshwar Rout is elected as President.

That on 22.12.2008, a general body meeting of newly constituted Village Education Committee, U.P.S. Khaspalak, Mohanpur held under the chairmanship of said Bishweshwar Rout and the petitioner Chaturanan Rout is already selected as Para Teacher. Thus it is obvious that the petitioner Chaturanan Rout has no cause of action to file the instant writ application as such it is fit to be dismissed with compensatory cost."

Taking into consideration the statements in the counter affidavit, the said WP(S) No.5877 of 2009 was disposed of by order dated 25.4.2013, in the following terms:-

"Considering the above, the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to claim his honorarium on the basis of his selection and the duty discharged by him earlier, by filing representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar. On receipt of representation, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. If the petitioner's claim for arrears / current honorarium is found genuine, the admitted amount shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter."

Thereafter upon the representation of the appellant writ petitioner, a reasoned order was passed on 19.6.2013 by the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, after giving a hearing to the appellant, stating therein that a meeting of the Village Education Committee was held in the year 2007, in which, one outsider was appointed and thereafter the Block Education Committee recommended the name of the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in Misc. Case No.4 of 2007 cancelled the Village Education Committee, giving direction for reconstitution of the Village Education Committee. The reconstituted Village Education Committee held its meeting on 21.11.2008, in which, the writ petitioner's name was again recommended, but the said meeting had been held without the approval of the Block Education Committee and in the said meeting, no Government official was present. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, accordingly, held that the selection of the appellant as Para Teacher was against the Rules and was invalid.

The writ petitioner challenged the said order in WP(S) No.6011 of 2015, which was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Single Judge, and by the impugned order dated 11.01.2017, the writ application has been dismissed taking note of the fact that the reconstituted Village Education Committee had held the meeting without the approval of Block Education Committee, and in absence of any Government official, and even the Supervisor was not present in the meeting and accordingly, the selection of the petitioner by said Committee cannot be approved, and he has been rightly denied the payment of the honorarium. The Writ Court accordingly, dismissed the writ application.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that upon selection by the Village Education Committee, the appellant has actually worked in the school and he is entitled for the payment of honorarium for the period he has already worked.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Writ Court.

In the facts of this case, since the selection / appointment of the appellant as Para Teacher was not in accordance with the Rules and the Village Education Committee had convened the meeting without the approval of the Block Education Committee, and in absence of any Government official, including the Supervisor, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 11.01.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in WP(S) No.6011 of 2015, dismissing the writ application, worth any interference in exercise of LPA jurisdiction.

We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.