Sita Ram Manjhi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel

Counsel for the petitioner is unable to justify the course, which the petitioner has completed, known as Bachelor of Preparatory Programme (B.P.P.), is equivalent to Intermediate in Arts. Bare assertion in the court of law has no value unless petitioner justifies with the help of necessary notifications equalizing these two courses, namely Bachelor of Preparatory Programme, conducted by the Indira Gandhi National Open University as well as Intermediate in Arts.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not canvassing this argument. Thus, it appears that he is admitting that these two courses are not equivalent. This fact is admitted.

Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the order of termination of the petitioner, dated 24th May, 2008, which is at Annexure8 to the memo of the present petition, mainly on the ground that the petitioner has acquired the minimum qualification for the appointment of Para Teacher. The petitioner was B.P.P., which is equivalent to Intermediate in Arts on that point of time. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the respondents and hence, the termination order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, the petitioner is also claiming for payment of arrears of his honorarium from October, 2007 to May, 2008.

Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was not legally qualified to be appointed as Para Teacher. He was appointed on 20th May, 2006 and there is already a Circular issued by the respondents State authorities as per Annexure A to the counter affidavit dated 25th May, 2006 that those, who are not legally qualified to Para Teacher, their services have been brought to an end with immediate effect, but, for no reason whatsoever, the petitioner was continued in service and therefore, again a letter was written dated 24th May, 2008, which is at Annexure8 to the memo of the present petition, which is under challenge.

It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents State that the order at Annexure A, issued by the State authorities dated 25th May, 2006 is not under challenge. As this earlier order is not complied with the second order has to be issued, which is under challenge by the petitioner. The minimum qualification required for the appointment of Para Teacher is Intermediate in Arts. Petitioner is an Intermediate in Arts and therefore, petitioner''s appointment has rightly been terminated vide order at Annexure8 to the memo of the present petition. In fact, his services ought to have been terminated with effect from 25th May, 2006, just within five days of his appointment. The petitioner was continued also unauthorizedly in the services as Para Teacher and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the following facts and reasons:

(i) The petitioner is appointed as Para Teacher at district Deoghar with effect from 20th May, 2006.

(ii) The minimum qualification for appointment of a Para Teacher is clearance of the Intermediate examination. The petitioner has not cleared this examination, but, he has cleared some Bachelor of Preparatory Programme (B.P.P.) Examination in the year, 2007.

(iii) Looking to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it appears that a direction was given by the State authorities to terminate the services of the Para Teachers, who are not legally eligible and qualified to be appointed at Para Teachers. The Circular was not quantified by certain adamant institution and therefore, once again, the order was passed on 24th May, 2008, which is at Annexure8 to the memo of the present petition. In this impugned order at first paragraph, the aforesaid Circular, which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, has been referred and specific direction has been given by names, which is under challenge. As the petitioner has not obtained the legally minimum required qualification, he could not have been appointed as a Para Teacher on 20th May, 2006. It prima facie appears that the petitioner''s services have rightly been brought to an end by now, specific order dated 24th May, 2008, which is at Annexure8.

(iv) The contention raised by the petitioner that he has cleared some B.P.P. examination and later on, cleared some qualification in the year, 2007, but, appeared in the year, 2006, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and therefore, his appointment as a Para Teacher cannot be terminated by the impugned order at Annexure -8. This contention is not accepted by this Court because clearance of examination is in the year, 2007 whereas, the petitioner was appointed on 20th May, 2006.

(v) As the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed, he is not entitled for his honorarium for the period as claimed in the memo of the present petition.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.