Dismissed

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt v. James Surin

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2021LPA/119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge order directing salary payment to a teacher despite allegations of a fake certificate. The High Court held that without a completed official enquiry affording opportunity, salary could not be withheld and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; salary disbursement order of the Single Judge was not interfered with; IA No. 1498 of 2019 disposed of.

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 119 of 2019

¶4

with

¶5

I.A. No. 1497 of 2019

¶6

with I.A. No. 1498 of 2019

¶7

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.

¶9

2.The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.

¶10

3.The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.

¶11

4.The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O

¶12

& P.S. – Simdega, Dist – Simdega.

¶13

5.The District Education Officer, District Collectoriate, Simdega, P.O & P.S.- Simdega, Dist- Simdega.

¶14

..... Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/ Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

1. James Surin, S/o Late Junthan Surin, R/o Saldega Kunj Nagar, Simdega, P.O – Simdega, P.S. – Simdega, Dist. – Simdega, Pin-835223, Jharkhand.

¶17

. .. ... ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶18

2. The Principal, Plathpur High School, Koronjo, Simdega, P.O., P.S. & Dist – Simdega, Jharkahnd.

¶19

... Respondent No. 6/Performa Respondent

¶20

¶21

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶23

¶24

For the Appellants : Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C. III For the Respondents : ----

¶25

Oral Judgment Order No. 06 : Dated 15^th March, 2021:

¶26

Matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

¶27

I.A. No. 1497 of 2019

¶28

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 146 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

¶29

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶30

5. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

¶31

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1497 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 146 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

¶32

L.P.A. No. 119 of 2019

¶33

7. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5968 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was held entitled to get salary admissible to untrained

¶34

¶35

teacher for the period in question. However, liberty was granted to the respondents-State to initiate appropriate proceeding by issuing fresh show cause, allegedly for producing fake training certificate, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶36

8. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis , are as under:

¶37

The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Science Teacher vide appointment letter dated 30.11.1992, in pursuance to the advertisement floated by Plathpur High School, Koronjo and accordingly, he joined the said post on 01.12.1992.

¶38

The writ petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher in the light of circular issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar vide Memo No. 116 dated 05.03.1991, wherein it was stated that for appointment to the post of teacher, it is not mandatory to be a trained and after appointment, training would be given by the State in course of service.

¶39

Subsequently, the appointment of the writ petitioner was ratified by the respondents-authorities and he was allowed to discharge his duty as also salary was paid up-to February, 2004, but, all of a sudden from March, 2004, onwards his salary was stopped.

¶40

¶41

Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner submitted repeated representations before the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievances, however, to no effect, which compelled the writ petitioner to approach this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5968 of 2017, inter alia, on the ground that the decision to withhold the salary without issuance of any notice and show cause is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power of the respondents-authorities.

¶42

According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner the action of the respondents-authorities is contrary to the decision taken by the authorities itself, who after being found the writ petitioner eligible to be appointed on the post of Science teacher, had appointed him in terms of the advertisement and after following the rules for appointment. According to writ petitioner, even though he was untrained but his name was recommended for approval by the concerned authorities but no order was passed in this regard and all of a sudden his salary was stopped from March, 2004.

¶43

The State-respondents contested the case by filing counter affidavit inter alia taking the ground that the writ petitioner is not fit to hold the said post as he was having

¶44

¶45

no training certificate and when he was asked to produce the training certificate, he submitted certificate of an institution which is not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and subsequently the said certificate was found to be fake, therefore, authorities while taking decision to stop salary cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily.

¶46

Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, disposed of the writ petition holding the writ petitioner entitled for salary admissible to untrained teachers, however, granted liberty to the respondents-authorities to initiate appropriate proceeding by issuing fresh show cause notice and if it is found that the writ petitioner has tried to mislead the respondents-authorities on the basis of said certificate, reasoned order in accordance with law be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, the aforesaid order is under challenge in the instant intra-court appeal.

¶47

9. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C. III appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the writ petitioner although was appointed as Science Teacher but subsequently, the training certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was found to be fake, therefore, the writ petitioner is not fit to hold the said

¶48

¶49

post. She further submits that the learned Single Judge, has not appreciated the conduct of the writ petitioner and without appreciating this aspect of the matter has directed to disburse the salary, which is not at all proper and, therefore, she prays to interfere with the impugned order.

¶50

10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellantsState, perused the materials available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

The fact, which is not in dispute in the instant case is that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Science Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement floated by the respondents-authorities and thereafter he started discharging his duties and salary was also paid to him up-to February, 2004.

¶52

However, salary was withheld from the month of March, 2004 on the ground of having no training certificate and subsequently, whatever training certificate produced by the writ petitioner was found to be fake.

¶53

The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration these facts more particularly the fact that the writ petitioner was allowed to discharge the duty since his joining on 01.12.1992 and also salary was paid up-to February, 2004, held the writ petitioner entitled for salary from March, 2004 onwards, however, liberty was granted

¶54

¶55

to the respondents-authorities to conduct an enquiry with respect to submission of fake certificate and pass reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶56

11. In the aforesaid factual background, the question which is to be answered by this Court is as to:

¶57

“Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petitioner is entitled for the salary for the period, for which he has been allowed to work?

¶58

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed after following due procedure and thereafter he joined to the post of Science Teacher in the said school on 01.12.1992 and continuously discharged his duties and salary was also regularly paid up-to February, 2004 i.e. for 12 years and thereafter, all of a sudden since March, 2004, his salary was stopped.

¶59

It appears that even though liberty was granted by the writ Court to conduct enquiry with respect to genuineness of the training certificate allegedly submitted by the writ petitioner, but as yet even though order having been passed by the writ Court to that effect way back on 16.08.2018 no proceeding has been initiated rather the writ petitioner has been allowed to continue his service, as has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondents-State during course of argument.

¶60

Therefore, salary for the period for which the writ

¶61

¶62

petitioner has been allowed to discharge his duty cannot be withheld in the garb of producing the alleged fake certificate for the reason that as yet the respondentsauthorities have not come to a conclusive finding by conducting a full-fledged enquiry, by affording sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner about the genuineness of the training certificate.

¶63

The learned Single Judge taking into consideration these aspects of the matter directed to disburse the salary for the period the writ petitioner has discharged his duties, which cannot be said to be improper warranting interference by this Court, more particularly for the reason that the learned Single Judge, since has already granted liberty to the appellants-State to consider the veracity of the said training certificate by passing a reasoned order to that effect.

¶64

12. Therefore, according to our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, pertaining to disbursement of salary, in the light of facts and discussions made herein above, cannot be faulted with.

¶65

The issue framed by this Court is accordingly answered.

¶66

13. Accordingly, we refrain ourselves from interfering with the impugned order.

¶67

¶68

14 . In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed.

¶69

15 . Consequent upon the dismissal of the instant intracourt appeal, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1498 of 2019 stand disposed of.

¶70

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶71

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶72

Alankar/ - A.F.R.

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt v. James Surin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt v. James Surin

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

Mihir Kumar Singh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Excella Real Projects I Ltd. through Its Director Dulal Chandra Nandi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Others

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand Laghu Ewam Madhyam Samachar Patra Sangh Through Its Convenor Arun Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

The State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Human Resources Development Department Vs Laknu Sahu