Partly allowed

Kumari Ranju v. Education

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2019WPC/2163/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an office order cancelling the petitioner's appointment as a teacher for violating principles of natural justice, directing reinstatement from the date of the cancellation order with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed; the petitioner is to be reinstated from the date of the order with all consequential benefits.

Kumari Ranju Vs Education — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 2163 OF 2017

¶4

Kumari Ranju … … Petitioner

¶5

V E R S U S The State of Jharkhand and others … ... Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to SC (L & C)

¶8

05/09.07.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 363, dated 09.03.2017, issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub Divisional Education Officer, Koderma, whreby and whereunder her appointment has been cancelled from the date of appointment. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to release arrears of salary payable to her from the date of appointment i.e. 24.01.2016 till date with statutory interest.

¶10

Brief facts of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that after meeting of Gram Sabha held on 10.03.2003, petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in newly created School at Hazaribagh. At the relevant time, petitioner was an Intermediate passed candidate. After her appointment, petitioner did her B.A. (Hons.) in Geography from Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Jhumri Tilaiya after taking due permission from Village Education Committee and the Block Education Extension Officer, Markacho. Petitioner attended the College without any disturbance in performing her duties as the classes were scheduled from 6:00 to 9:00 am. and there was no complaint from any quarter. Subsequently, pursuant to the office order as contained in Memo No. 129, dated 04.01.2016, petitioner was appointed and joined the service as a Teacher in the said School situated at Village – Jamu, Markacho, Koderma in the pay scale of Rs.9,300 – 34,800 with grade pay of Rs.4,600/- under Para Category. All of a sudden petitioner was served show-cause vide Memo No. 364, dated 11.04.2016, asking

¶11

¶12

¶13

her to give explanation as to how she obtained Degree of graduation on regular basis while working as a Para Teacher. Petitioner filed reply to show-cause and continued to discharge her duties as a Teacher. However, without considering facts and circumstances, her appointment to the post of Teacher has been cancelled with effect from the date of appointment. Being aggrieved by issuance of Memo No. 363, dated 09.03.2017, issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub Divisional Education Officer, Koderma, whreby and whereunder her appointment has been cancelled from the date of appointment, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

¶14

Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No departmental proceeding was ever initiated nor petitioner received any notice regarding initiation of departmental proceeding and in violation of principles of natural justice, impugned order has been issued. The distance between concerned College and village – Jamu is around 35 – 40 kms. and as such petitioner easily attended classed from 6:00 to 9.00 in the morning and thereafter discharged her duties as a Para Teacher from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Learned counsel submits that it is settled law that in service jurisprudence, major punishment may not be imposed against an employee without initiation of a departmental proceeding. Petitioner has not been given any opportunity of personal hearing and order of punishment of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment has been passed, which is very harsh and fit to be quashed.

¶15

Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to learned SC (L & C) submits that petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher on the basis of her possessing qualification of Intermediate Pass. Learned counsel submits that no letter had been issued from the office of Village Education Committee and Block Education Extension Officer allowing the petitioner to pursue her higher education after attending regular classes from the institution/ college. Petitioner has not taken permission from the proper authority nor she could have been allowed to pursue higher studies by doing regular

¶16

¶17

¶18

classes. She has given contradictory statement to the effect that she has obtained Degree as a regular candidate as the said Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Jhumri Telaiya is at a distance of 50 Kms. away from the village Jamu and it is almost impossible to attend regular classes and discharging duties as a Para Teacher. Petitioner could not bring on record any proof from the concerned College regarding the classes attended by her. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner even did not give reply to the show-cause in time and due to these reasons the Committee has decided to cancel her appointment.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that petitioner was appointed on 10.06.2003 as a Para Teacher and there was no complaint from any quarter. Thereafter, upon her selection to the post of Teacher vide Memo dated 04.01.2016 and furtherance thereto she joined the school situated at Village – Jamu, Koderma. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents as she had not been given proper opportunity to defend her case nor principles of natural justice had been followed while passing the impugned Memo No. 363, dated 09.03.2017, issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub Divisional Education Officer, Koderma. Before passing such harsh punishment, petitioner would have been given proper opportunity and as such, I find force in submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and impugned order is fit to be interfered.

¶20

As a cumulative effect of the aforementioned facts, the impugned Memo No. 363, dated 09.03.2017, issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education – cum – Sub Divisional Education Officer, Koderma, is hereby quashed. As a result of quashment of order, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner from the date of passing of the order restraining the petitioner from discharging her duties and grant her all consequential benefits.

¶21

This writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶22

( Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. )

¶23

Kumari Ranju v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Ranju v. Education

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

Rati Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Prasad Sharma Vs Panchaitee Raj

Kauleshwari Charan Ram Vs Food Corporation Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Mosamat Ful Devi Vs Education

Lalita Oraon Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Benedict Aind Vs the State of Jharkhand