Mathura Prasad Thakur vs State of Jharkhand and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher in Sanskrit in any of the Primary School, in

pursuance of the advertisement dated 15th April, 1986, issued in the newspaper ''Aaj.'' After interview, the districtwise panel was prepared and in

pursuance of circular dated 2nd July, 1989, persons ""belonging to other districts, were not empanelled. Aggrieved with the same, a number of

persons preferred writ applications for ,in inclusion of their names in the panel, including the petitioners, who filed CWJC No. 1918 of 1989 (R)

for similar relief. Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court vide order dated 28th July, 1995 while disposed of the writ petitioner and others against the

existing vacancies or in case of no vacancy, against the future vacancies. However, when the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide letter No.

4881, dated 14th November, 1996, on the ground that he had not appeared at the interview, -held on 2nd May, 1987, he preferred CWJC No.

2984 of 1997(R). In the said case, while the Court did not take into consideration that ground, remitted the matter to the respondents to

reconsider the case of the petitioner.

The respondents again reconsidered the case and rejected it vide letter No. 309 dated 16th April. 1999 on the same ground that the petitioner

had not appeared at the interview.

In the present case, the Court having noticed that the rejection letter No. 309 dated 16th April, 1999, passed by the r District Superintendent of

Education, Dhanbad, is prima facie in contravention of an order, passed by this Court on 3rd February, 1999 in CWJC No. 2984 of 1997(R),

Mathura Prasad Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., by order dated 26th March, 2004 granted some time with a liberty to the respondents to

determine as to whether they intend to recall the order, contained in letter No. 309 dated 16th April, 1999 and to reconsider the case of the

petitioner in the light; of the earlier order dated 3rd February, 1999, passed in CWJC No. 2984 of 1997(R), or not. 4

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, apart from a show cause, filed by the District Superintendent of

Education, Dhanbad (respondent No. 3). A petition is stated to have been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, to the effect that

she did not appear before the Court as she is out of State in connection with training.

From the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it appears that the case of, the petitioner was placed before the District Education

Establishment Committee, Dhanbad. held on 29th June, 2004. Having noticed the fact that the earlier order No, 309, dated 16th April. 1999 was

not in accordance with law, it is stated that the said order has been recalled. However, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the District.

Education Establishment Committee in Us meeting dated 14th August, 2004, as circulated vide Memo No. 1508/04-1693. Dhanbad. dated 17th

August, 2004 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit). It appears that advertisement was issued in the year, 1986 and the panel was prepared in the

year, 1988. Subsequently new Rule was framed in the year, 1991, which was amended in the year, 1993 and 1997. Thereafter, the existing State

of Bihar, having been reorganized, the successor State of Jharkhand framed a new Rule, known as Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment

Rules, 2002. The District Education Establishment Committee found that the educational qualification of the petitioner is matriculate and is

untrained. As per the 1991 Rules, only a trained teacher can be appointed to the post. The committee further noticed that the panel prepared

districtwise in the year, 1988 without considering the case of those, belonging to other districts was stayed vide Notification dated 2nd July, 1989.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sabita Prasad v. Government of Bihar upheld the notification dated 2nd July, 1989, whereby, 1988 panel was

cancelled. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that no appointment can be made from a district panel, which was prepared in violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India without considering the cases of others, residing in other districts, and the notification cancelling such panel

was upheld by the Supreme Court and that the petitioner is untrained, the District Education Establishment Committee, Dhanbad, rejected the

petitioner''s case for his appointment as Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit in any school, I find no illegality in the order. The appearance of the Deputy

Commissioner, Dhanbad, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, and other officers are dispensed with. There being no merit, this writ

petition is hereby dismissed.