Nishith Kumar Ghosh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C. (L &C) III for the respondents-State and Mr. Ranjan

Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing order dated 24.05.2007, 10.07.2007 and 18.06.2009 whereby respondent no. 2 accepted

the joining of respondent no. 5. By way of amendment, the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of order dated 11.11.2009 passed by D.S.E.,

Jamtara whereby the claim of petitioner was rejected. Further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all

consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possessing the requisite qualification and belonging to village Shyam Bathan, resident

of beneficiaries area, applied for appointment to the post of Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Shyam Bathan along with other candidates.

The Village Education Committee in its meeting dated 15. 05.2006 recommended the name of petitioner, which was finally approved by the competent

authority. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the said post on 01.07.2006 and was paid salary up-to 31.05.2007.

The respondent no. 5, being aggrieved with the selection of petitioner, moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 7270 of 2006 and W.P. (S) No. 3369

of 2007, which were disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2006 and 5.07.2007 respectively. In the first writ petition, the Court directed to consider the

case of respondent no. 5 (petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 7270 of 2006) and pass appropriate order and in W.P. (S) No. 3369 of 2007, liberty was given to

submit representation which was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law. In compliance thereof, vide order dated 24.05.2007, the District

Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer terminated the petitioner and directed the Secretary of the said school to complete the

process of selection of respondent no. 5 herein within a period of three days. Thereafter, the Secretary of the said school directed respondent no. 5 to

join the said post vide order dated 10.07.2007. Being aggrieved by order of termination dated 24.05.2007 and direction to appoint respondent no. 4 vide

order dated 10.07.2007, the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5133 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2009 and

the matter was remitted to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order. In compliance thereof, the District Superintendent of Education-

cum-District Programme Officer, Jamtara passed order dated 18.06.2009 observing that in the light of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 7270 of 2006,

respondent no. 5 has been appointed. Accordingly, his representation was disposed of. During pendency of the writ application, the respondent no. 2

rejected the claim of the petitioner vide memo dated 11.11.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that petitioner is resident of village of beneficiaries area i.e. of village Shyam Bathan

whereas the respondent no. 5 is resident of Dhatala, as appears from Voter list. It has further been submitted that immediately after issuance of order

of appointment of respondent no. 5, the Village Education Committee, which is the competent authority to recommend the candidate for appointment

on the post of Para Teacher, in its meeting held on 19.06.2007 resolved that since respondent no. 5 is not resident of that area and he does not possess

the qualification of I.A. Trained, appointment of respondent no. 5 cannot be made and decided to make a request to appoint the petitioner. Thereafter,

again vide letter dated 30.06.2007 villagers of the concerned village requested the D.S.E., Jamtara to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Para

Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that impugned order dated 11.11.2009 has been passed without holding any enquiry and

without examining the candidature of both the candidates, hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Singh, appearing for respondent no. 5 on the extent of order dated 11.11.2009 submits that petitioner has been provided full opportunity of

hearing and after affording opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed which needs no interference by this Court.

On perusal of record, it appears that initially after following due process of law, the Village Education Committee recommended the name of

petitioner and his name was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, he joined as Para Teacher. But, a controversy arose which resulted

in filing of writ petitions by the co-participant, respondent no. 5 herein, in which, the respondent-DSE was directed to dispose of the representation of

the petitioner and consider his case. In compliance thereof, the respondent-DSE after terminating the petitioner herein ordered for appointment of

respondent no. 5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner also filed one writ petition W.P. (S) No. 5133 of 2007, in which, the Court after remitting the

matter back directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh giving opportunity of being heard. The respondent though rejected the claim of the

petitioner but in the order 11.11.20109 it holds that respondent no. 5 does not belong to that village meaning thereby respondent no. 5 does not fulfills

the eligibility criteria and impugned order suffers from illegality.

For the reasons aforesaid, order dated 11.11.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the earlier impugned orders have been passed by the

District Superintendent of Education, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with relevant

rule/circular and observations made by this Court and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of six weeks from the

date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.