Petitioners sought to quash an order denying regularisation to a teacher appointed beyond sanctioned strength. The court held that regularisation requires a vacant and sanctioned post prior to appointment and rejected the claim, dismissing the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2357 of 2001
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--For the Petitioner s : Mr. A. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents : A.A.G.
18/16.04.2019 : Heard counsels for the parties.
The Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2000 whereby the claim of the original petitioner to be regularised on the post of Assistant Teacher in Project High School, Kuji, Lohardaga, has been denied.
As per the pleading and argument, it appears that the school in question has been taken over by the government under the scheme with effect from 23.09.1983 and the original petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee vide appointment letter dated 03.01.1984 and accordingly he had joined on the said post on 26.04.1984 as English Teacher.
Further, from the pleading and argument, it appears that the government has issued a wireless message dated 14.04.1987 wherein it has been stipulated that the teachers appointed till 13.02.1985 either by the Managing Committee or by District Education Officer will be considered for regularisation of their
services for the post available in the school. As per the scheme nine teaching posts have been sanctioned.
Further from the pleading it appears that the original petitioner had been appointed against 10th post and as such he was beyond the sanctioned strength approved by the State government.
Since his services had not been regularised, the original petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1963 of 1994(R) (Annexure-11) which had been disposed of vide order dated 28.11.1995 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the authority. The relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow:-
“I would disposed of this application with liberty to the petitioner to make representation in respect of his grievance. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merit of this case in the other way or the other, this application thus stands disposed of.”
As per above order of this Court, the original petitioner represented and his claim had been rejected. The petitioner had raised his claim before the authority and vide order dated 01.03.1995 the claim of the original petitioner had been rejected as it was beyond the sanctioned strength.
Subsequently, another person namely Ashok Kumar Sahu belonging to different school had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2387 of 1995(R) and the same had been disposed of vide order dated 05.07.1996, directing to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner against post which has fallen vacant due to retirement or death of teachers who were within sanctioned strength of the same school.
The original petitioner had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1804 of 1998 (R) which had been disposed of vide order dated 16.09.1999 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority and the concerned authority was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order.
Upon such direction, the original petitioner had approached to the authority and the authority had passed a reasoned order dated 13.10.2000 which has been impugned in the present writ petition as Annexure-20.
The petitioner has claimed on the ground that one Marwari Bhagat has died on 09.09.1997 as he was within sanctioned strength i.e. within nine post and as such vacant and sanctioned post became available. One post became vacant and on the basis of parity, the original petitioner should be considered for regularisation against the sanctioned post which has become vacant due to the death of Marwari Bhagat.
Thus, the fact is clear that the school in question has been taken as a government school w.e.f. 23.09.1983. The original petitioner had been appointed on 03.01.1984 beyond the sanctioned strength i.e. against 10th post. The original petitioner was claiming for regularisation against the post which has been fallen vacant on 09.09.1997 on the death of Marwari Bhagat. One of the reasons has been impugned that the original petitioner has been appointed after the school has been taken over.
It is trite that a person can enter into a government service only through the window of vacancy and sanctioned post. If there is no vacant and sanction post, then there is no concept of any appointment. A person can been appointed on the post only after due process of law or by way of employment. In the present case, when the school was taken over the original petitioner was in service which was beyond the sanctioned strength.
Original petitioner has claimed given regularisation against the said post on parity. As per circular dated 28.02.1985, any appointment in a school can be made only on the recommendation of the Vidyalaya Seva Board. In the present case, the original petitioner has died on 29.07.2011 and his date of birth is 20.01.1956
and as per date of birth, the date of retirement of the petitioner is 19.01.2016.
It is admitted position that the original petitioner has never worked against the vacant and sanctioned post till 09.09.1997.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds no ground for interfering with the impugned order of rejection dated 13.10.2000. Accordingly, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a teacher appointed beyond sanctioned strength in a government school can be regularized against a vacancy created by retirement or death.
Whether appointment can be made without a vacant and sanctioned post.
Whether the right to regularisation accrues on parity when the petitioner never worked against a vacant sanctioned post until the vacancy occurred.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samina Khatoon
Md. Yasid Eqbal
Naurinn Shabnam
Nazia Praveen
State of Jharkhand
The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
