Md. Allauddin vs State of Jharkhand

In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 7 on the post of Para Teacher in New

Govt. Upgraded Middle School, Mahadevpur, Pokhartola, Sahebganj. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider

the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post in question in the aforesaid School in the light of the proceeding of the Gram Shiksha Samittee,

dated 10.08.2009. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner to declare that the degree granted by the ‘Madarsa’ has to be accepted for

selection of para teachers under the Serva Siksha Abhiyan as the same has been recognized vide office Order dated 11.03.1977, issued by the

erstwhile State of Bihar.Â

The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, are that in pursuance to the Advertisement published in daily News Paper for selection

of Para-Teacher including teacher of New Government Upgraded Middle School, Mahadevpur, Pokhartola in the district of Sahibganj, the petitioner

having the requisite qualification, applied for the said post. It has been stated in the writ application that the petitioner having obtained the Master

degree in Urdu, which has been recognized by the erstwhile State of Bihar for the post of Government job. In pursuance to the aforesaid

advertisement, the petitioner participated in the process of selection before the Gram Siksha Samittee. Although, the petitioner has qualified in all

respects, his case was not considered. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Selection Committee, the petitioner submitted representation vide

Annexure-7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the nonselection on the post in question, the petitioner has been constrained to challenge before

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the petitioner having the higher education compared to the respondent No. 7,

has been ignored by the Selection committee, which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the State Government for the selection on the post in

question. Learned counsel further submits that the denial of selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, is in violation of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner stakes his claim for appointment on the second post since respondent

No. 7 having B.A. has been preferred even though the petitioner has got Post-Graduate degree in the Urdu (Fazil).

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it

has been submitted that a General Meeting by the Village Education Committee, Mahadevpur, Pokhartola, within Barharwa Block, was held on

10.08.2009 for selection of two para teachers in the Government Upgraded Primary School, Mahadevpur, Pokhartola. In the said meeting, the Village

Education Committee, as per the Government Guidelines had selected two candidates, namely, Mehboob Alam for the 1st post and Md. Nabid Akbar

for the 2nd post of para teacher for the said school. Thereafter, the said Resolution has been sent to the Block Level Education Committee, Barharwa

for approval, which is evident from Anexure-5 to the writ application. It has further been submitted that the Block Education Committee, Barharwa

vide its meeting dated 22.08.2009 approved the resolution of the Village Education Committee, because of the fact that the said selection is as per the

Government guidelines and circular and there has been no violation of the Government Circular. Thereafter, the appointment for approval was sent to

the District Level Committee i.e. Jharkhand Siksha Pariyojna, Samittee, Sahebganj, dated 22.08.2009 for its approval. Thereafter, the District

Approval Education Committee, enquired the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that since the Government Guidelines for resolution of the

Village Education Committee has been strictly followed, the same was approved. After observing all the paraphernalia and other formalities, the

appointments orders were issued to the para-teachers including the respondent no. 7.

Learned Sr.S.C. I appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that the respondent no. 7, though being a physically handicapped candidate,

has been preferred in comparison to the petitioner and the same has been reflected in the resolution of the Village Education Committee as per

Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that the State of Jharkhand, also adopting the reference vide Annexure-C dated

24.11.2008, has issued the Circular with regard to the appointment, in case of physically handicapped persons. Learned counsel further submits that in

view of the Right to Education Act, which has come into effect in 2010, without passing the TET, no teacher can be appointed without having training.

In this regard, learned counsel for the RespondentState has referred to Annexure-E and F to the counter affidavit.Â

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment on the post of Para-teacher due to the following facts and reasons : -

(i) The process of selection of the respondent no. 7, which has been done by the Village Education Committee, was completed prior to coming into

force of the Right to Education Act, 2010, which has been in vogue in the State of Jharkhand, with effect from 01st April, 2010.Â

(ii) It would be relevant to mention that although the petitioner appears to have better qualification compared to the respondent no. 7 but the Village

Education Committee has selected the respondent no. 7 as per the guidelines for the State of Bihar and the decision taken by the Village Education

Committee has been sent for approval to the Block Education Committee and the said Committee approved the same on 22.08.2009 as per Annexure-

D to the counter affidavit, considering the fact that, he is a physically challenged person, therefore, there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety on the

part of the respondents in selecting the respondent no. 7.

(iii) This writ application was filed in the year 2011 after coming into force of the Right to Education Act in the year 2010 and nothing has been

brought on record that the petitioner, in the meantime, has acquired the requisite qualification. In absence of the requisite qualification and after coming

into the force of the Right to Education Act, 2010 this Court would be loath to tinker with the selection of the respondent no. 7 otherwise it would

amount to unsettling the settled position.

In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection of the Respondent No. 7.Â

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.         Â

Â

  Â