MEENA KUMARI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHER

Pramath Patnaik, J

In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 28.12.2007 whereby claim of the petitioner with regard

to her appointment and for payment of outstanding salary has been rejected.

2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that after following due procedure of appointment of para teacher, the petitioner along

with one Angad Mahto was selected and appointed as a para teacher by Gram Shiksha Samittee, Malidih, Jamua in Shiksha Guarantee Kendra on

16.06.2003. It has further been averred that pursuant to her selection, he started imparting education to students in that Centre but when the

honorarium was sent for payment, the petitioner was not paid rather in her place one Fatu Mahto was paid. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner

approached the respondents-authorities, but, it did not evoke any response, hence, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.

7252 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2007 directing the respondent-Deputy Commissionercum-Chairman, Giridih to consider

the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate order. In compliance thereof, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 28.12.2007 in Misc.

Case No. 10 of 2007 held that claim of Fatu Mahto for payment of honorarium (Mandey) to him against his services as para teacher is proper thereby

rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for redressal of her grievances.

Heard Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Associate counsel of learned S.C. II and Mr. S.N.

Roy, for the respondent no. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after due procedure, the petitioner was appointed by Gram Shiksha Samittee as she was fulfilling

all the criteria laid down in circular dated 08.10.2003 meant for selection on the post in question. It has further been submitted that though the

petitioner, being a lady candidate, possess all the requisite qualification and is resident of that locality on the contrary the respondent no. 6 who has

neither passed the Intermediate examination nor possesses a valid teachers' training certificate; the respondents-District

Magistrate, Giridih ignoring these basic fact passed impugned order dated 28.12.2007, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that in pursuance to direction passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation

in W.P. (S) No. 7252 of 2006; both the parties, the present petitioner and said Fatu Mahto were heard at length and thereafter impugned order was

passed, which needs no interference by this Court. It has further been submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner did never pass the matriculation

or intermediate examination and any certificate available with her in support of her educational qualification is false, fake and fabricated. It has further

been submitted that the petitioner is a married lady living with her husband in her in-law's house at village Golhaiya and not where the Centre is

situated. In support of his submission, the respondents have annexed the voter list showing her name in Golhaiya village voter list. It has further been

submitted that since the petitioner was never appointed as para teacher there is no question of making payment of salary or honorarium to her.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 referring to proceeding of Gram Shiksha Samiti, Malidih held on 16.06.2003 submitted that the

selection of petitioner-Meena Kumari was rejected by the member of the Samiti as at the time of selection she was residing with her husband at

village-Golhaiya; hence she was denied appointment and Angad Mahto and Fatu Mahto was appointed, who were fulfilling all the criteria.Â

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case

for interference for the following facts and reasons:

  (I).From perusal of record, in particular the minutes of meeting of Gram Shiksha Samite dated 16.06.2003, it is amply clear that the Samiti

thoroughly discussed the matter of residential status of petitioner and thereafter came to the conclusion that since the petitioner resides with her

husband at village Golhaiya; hence she does not come under the zone of consideration, accordingly was denied appointment and Angad Mahto

and Fatu Mahto was given appointment having fulfilled all the criteria.Â

  (ii).From the pleadings available on record, it also transpires that the certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be forged, but, no report

suggesting the certificate to be forged has been annexed with the counter affidavit. Besides, from the report submitted by B.E.E.O and B.D.O, Jamua

it appears that the petitioner was never selected by the Village Education Committee, hence there is no question of issuance of writ mandamus

directing the respondents to make payment.

 (iii).Moreover, from plain reading of impugned order dated 28.12.2007 it appears that the District Magistrate, Giridih after giving full opportuny to

the petitioner passed the impugned order. From perusal of impugned order it appears neither there is any procedural irregularity nor it lacks merit

warranting any interference by this Court.

9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I am of considered view that the writ application does not warrant any interference by

this Court and the same is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Â