Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2018WPC/6316/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for appointment as an Assistant Teacher or Para Teacher dismissed. The Court held that private engagement prior to 1995 was insufficient as no government school existed then. The petitioner failed to undergo competitive exams or apply under the relevant scheme for selection.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher/Para Teacher is dismissed.

Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6316 of 2010

¶3

Dilip Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Yodhan Yadav, resident of villageTekbathan, P.O Mangalhat, P.S. Rajmahal, District-Sahebganj.

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj.

¶8

3.District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj.

¶9

4.Block Education Extension Officer, Rajmahal, P.O and P.S. Rajmahal, District-Sahebganj.… … ... Respondents

¶10

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK

¶11

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, J.C to S.C. II

¶12

05 / Dated: 14th February, 2018 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:

¶13

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher/Para Teacher in Primary School, Tek Bathan, Rajmahal (Sahebganj).

¶14

2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in the year 1986 a proposal was made by Village Education Committee, Tek Bathan for opening a school in the village and accordingly, the petitioner and one Shyam Soren were entrusted the work of teaching. It has further been averred that in the year 1986 itself, the Headmaster of Government Middle School, Mangalhat, Rajmahal and thereafter villagers also made recommendation for undertaking of the school in question, consequent thereupon the aforesaid school i.e. Primary School, Tek Bathan was taken over by the Government in the year 1995.

¶15

3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, J.C to learned S.C. II for the respondents-State.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner along with one Shyam Soren, from the very inception

¶17

when the school was established in the year 1986 was teaching in the school but after the school being taken over by the Government in the year 1995, they were not given status of either regular teacher (Assistant Teacher) or Para Teacher. Supporting his claim, even the local M.L.A made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner vide his letter dated 19.11.2001 but it did not evoke any response. It has further been submitted that even otherwise the petitioner is possessing all requisite qualification to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher/Para Teacher and at the relevant point of time there was sanctioned and vacant posts also but his case was not considered.

¶18

5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the District Primary Education Committee, Sahibganj in its meeting dated 10.12.1995 sanctioned to open 11 new Government Primary Schools under 08 Blocks in Sahibganj districts, in which, one new Government Primary School was opened in Tek Bathan with two sanctioned posts of teachers. However, the District Primary Education Committee neither had recognized any private Primary School nor had taken any service of any private teacher of any private Primary School, therefore, claim of the petitioner that he is working as teacher in Primary School, Tek Bathan, Rajmahal since 1986 is not tenable as at the relevant point of time, there was no Government Primary School in Tek Bathan, Rajmahal. Furthermore, when the Government decided to open Government Primary School vide its meting dated 10.12.1995, the trained teacher was to be appointed by adopting the procedure of Competitive Examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission and even trained teachers were appointed after conducting such examination. It is an admitted

¶19

case that the petitioner was neither trained teacher nor did he appear in any competitive examination to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. So far claim of the petitioner for even appointment on the post of Para Teacher is concerned, it is the petitioner who did not opt to appear or apply before Gram Shiksha Samittee (Village Education Committee), the competent authority to select Para Teachers as per scheme under Sarva Shiksh Abhiyan Program and from 01.04.2010 under R.T.E Act, the Government has fixed the essential qualification as B.T/B.Ed for selection of candidate on the Para Teacher through Aam Sabha conducted by Village Education Committee, hence, now the petitioner is not eligible for selection on the post of Para Teacher also. In such view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

6. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that the District Primary Education Committee, Sahibganj in its meeting dated 10.12.1995 sanctioned to open 11 new school, including one new Government Primary School at Tek Bathan, Rajmahal and the petitioner has failed to show any chit of paper showing the school in question was taken over by the government, so as to petitioner could have been absorbed/adjusted. Mere recommendation made by Headmaster of another school and local M.L.A or some villagers or an unauthorized Village Education Committee will not ipso facto entitle the petitioner for appointment/absorption/adjustment in the said school as it has no value in the eye of law. If there is establishment of new school, as in the case at hand appears in consequence of meeting of District Primary Education Committee, rules of appointment of teachers ought to be followed. Admittedly, neither the petitioner participated in examination conducted for appointment of regular

¶21

teacher nor he participated in procedure for appointment on the post of Para Teachers, hence the relief sought for by the petitioner is not tenable.

¶22

7. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any reason to issue writ of mandamus commanding upon respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher/Para Teacher in Primary School, Tek Bathan, Rajmahal.

¶23

8. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

¶24

Alankar/-

Dilip Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Kanhaiya Prasad Vs Tata Steel Limited And Ors.

Jayant Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md.Ishaque Ansari And Ors. Vs Steel Authority of India And Ors.

Dinanath Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bispat Mandal Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And

Smt.Shanati Gorethi Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.