Remanded

Pinki Sardar v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2016WPC/106/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the petitioner's challenge to her non-consideration for appointment as a primary teacher due to pursuing Intermediate studies as a regular candidate while serving as a para-teacher without prior permission. The Court directed the District Superintendent of Education to enquire into the genuineness of her studies and pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation before Respondent no.4 for a reasoned order and possible enquiry regarding her studies.

Pinki Sardar Vs Human Resources Department — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

¶2

W.P.(S) No.106 of 2016

¶3

Pinki Sardar, W/o Jaipal Singh Sardar, resident of village Chandpur, P.O. & P.S. Potka Dist-East Singhbhum…………………………Petitioner

¶4

V E R S U S

¶5

1.State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, At Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,Dist-Ranchi 2.Director, Primary Education, at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist – Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 4.District Superintendent of Education Officer, Seraikella-Kharswan, at District Office, Room No.17, P.O.Seraikella P.S.Seraikella Dist- Seraikella 5.Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan………. Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶7

For the Petitioner :Mr.Pramod Kumar For the State : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, S.C.V

¶8

4/ 13.6.16. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to consider

¶9

his case for appointment as a primary teacher in the non-para teacher category in the district of Seraikella-Kharswan, as her case was not considered.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.4 of 2015 for the post of Primary Teacher (non-para teacher category) for the district of Seraikella-Kharswan

¶11

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a parateacher and is working under the Respondents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has obtained Intermediate certificate from the Jharkhand Academic Council as she studied from the Chhotanagpur Inter College, Hensal, Seraikella-Kharswan

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was qualified and her name appears in Serial No.114 of the merit list but she was not considered on the ground that she had completed Intermediate while she was serving as a para-teacher.

¶13

Counsel for the State submits that this petitioner was appointed in

¶14

the year 2004 as a para-teacher and was regularly paid salary as she

¶15

was serving his duties regularly. She further submits that this petitioner without obtaining permission from the concerned authority has pursued her Intermediate studies in regular sessions, as such she was not considered.

¶16

Learned counsel further submits that there is no bar for obtaining any degree, or enhancement of qualification, by corresponding course but in a regular course the petitioner ought to have taken permission from the concerned authority.

¶17

It was further contended that this petitioner was called to explain as to under what circumstances she had obtained higher qualification as a regular candidate being a para-teacher without obtaining permission, vide letter dated 7.12.2015, but the petitioner did not appear before the Committee as such, her candidature was not considered.

¶18

In reply, counsel for the petitioner submits that Chhotanagpur Intermediate College, Hensal was running in the morning and the petitioner had completed her studies in the said morning shift, thereafter performed her duty as para teaher.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation within period of three weeks from today before the District Superintendent of Education, SeraikellaKharswan, respondent no.4, who, after hearing of the petitioner, will pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter. If necessary, respondent no.4 will make an enquiry whether the petitioner was a regular student of Intermediate College, Hensel and whether claim of the petitioner that the said college was running in the morning shift is correct or not.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, this application stands disposed of.

¶21

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶22

ND/

Pinki Sardar v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki Sardar v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantu Saw Alias Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nitesh Laha Alias Buku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Badsah Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Alexia Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sohwa Devi Vs Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Madan Singh Munda Vs Human Resources Department