Indu Kumari Yadav And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing of the order dated 29.06.09 bearing Memo No. 439 issued from the office of respondent no. 4 whereby the order dated 22.05.2009 bearing memo No. 329 issued from the office of respondent No. 4 was kept abeyance till further enquiry.

(ii) For direction upon the respondents to pay the honorarium amount to the petitioner from April 2007 to till date as she is continuously working as Para teacher in the aforesaid school from February, 2007.

(iii) For direction upon the respondents to implement the order issued from the office of respondents No. 4 on 22.05.09 bearing memo No. 329 by which the respondent No. 9,10 and 11 were discharge from service as their appointment was found illegal.

(iv) For direction upon the respondent to take appropriate action against the concern who were involve in illegal appointment of respondent No. 10 and 11 and also recover the amount of honorarium amount if paid to them.

Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the counter affidavit to submit that an order contained in memo No. 792 dated 14.06.2008 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara, on an application filed by the petitioner and by the said order, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of para teacher has been declined to be confirmed. Learned counsel has also submitted that this order is not under challenge before this court.

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been subsequent order contained in memo No. 329 dated 22.05.2009 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition which nullifies the effect of the order dated 14.06.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order as contained in Annexure-

4 was passed with malafide intention to accommodate the private respondents in the present case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that there are two contradictory orders on record (i) order contained in memo No. 792 dated 14.06.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara and (ii) order contained in memo No. 329 dated 22.05.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, cum District Programme Officer, Jamatara which has been kept in abeyance till further enquiry vide order contained in Memo No. 439 dated 29.06.09 also issued from the office of respondent no. 4. By the order dated 14.06.2008 the prayer of the petitioner to confirm her appointment has been declined and by order dated 22.05.2009 it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been wrongly removed.

Considering the aforesaid conflicting orders passed by two different authorities, this court is of the considered view that the matter be placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamatara who would look into the matter pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and if required also hear the other officials who have passed the aforesaid orders. Since no notice has been issued to the private respondents, the petitioner is directed to file a representation along with a copy of this order and the writ records including counter affidavit and its enclosures before the Respondent no. 3. It is made clear that if any merit is found in the claim of the petitioner and any adverse order is required to be passed against respondent No. 10 and 11, they should also be given an opportunity of hearing. The respondent No. 3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the respective parties.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Pending I.A., if any, is closed.