Dismissed

Ramprit Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC25 Mar 2022WPC/7214/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their disengagement after Deputy Commissioner cancelled their para teacher appointments due to an opaque selection process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; appointment of petitioners as para teachers cancelled and disengagement upheld.

What the court decided

Ramprit Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 7214 of 2011

¶3

1. Ramprit Singh

¶4

2. Surendra Turiya … Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

4. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project, Ranchi.

¶10

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.

¶11

6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Garhwa Jharkhand.

¶12

7. The Chairman, Village Education Committee, Sagma Tola, Bigwakhad, Dhurki, Garhwa.

¶13

8. The Secretary, Village Sagma Tola Bigwakhad, Dhurki, Garhwa.

¶14

9. Jharkhand Education Project Council, through its Stae Project Director, Ranchi. … Respondent(s).

¶15

… Respondent(s).

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . (Through: Video Conferencing)

¶17

----For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate For the State: Mr. Jagdeesh, AC to SC-I For Jharkhand Education Project: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate. -----

¶18

13/25.03.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.9.2011 contained in Memo No. 1062 issued by the District Superintendent of Education –cumDistrict Programme Officer, Garhwa, Sarva Shiksha Aviyan, whereby the appointment of the petitioners as para teachers has been set aside.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioners that they were engaged as para teachers and now they have been working in New Primary School, villageSagma tola, Baigwakhad, Dhurki from 28.2.2008. It is their case that they had submitted their application before Gram Sabha, and they have been selected by the Gram Sabha, as they were working since long.

¶21

There was some dispute raised by another contender i.e. Manoj Sah, who approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(S) No. 5657 of 2008 challenging the appointment of these two petitioners. The said writ petition was disposed of on 9.7.2010, whereby, Manoj Sah was directed to represent before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa raising all pleas. Manoj Sah, thereafter raised his grievance and the matter was inquired by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa after hearing the petitioners and Manoj Sah, passed the order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

¶22

-2-

¶23

Considering the said order, the impugned order (Annexure-4) was passed relieving the petitioners on the ground that the selection process, by which the petitioners were selected, was opaque and no reasons were assigned as to why the petitioners were selected and others were eliminated.

¶24

Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been working since long, but suddenly they were disengaged. He further submits that admittedly the petitioners were selected by Aam Sabha thus as per rule, the impugned order is absolutely bad. He further contends that even Manoj Sah had no objection, if the petitioners were to be appointed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Education Project as well as State submits that the appointment of the petitioners were erroneous. In fact, the appointment letters of the petitioners were not issued by the Village Education Committee and by the Block Education Officer, which is an illegality.

¶27

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶28

The facts, which has been narrated above, are admitted. After the order was passed by this Court in WPS No. 5657 of 2008, the petitioners and Manoj Sah appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, who made an enquiry and after hearing the parties, found that in Aam Sabha dated 28.2.2008 the petitioners were not the only candidates and there were other candidates including said Manoj Sah. The other candidates were Mukhtar Allam, Shashi Shekhar Yadav and one another. It has also been observed that if the candidates are more than the post, the same has to be registered in a register. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa also found that the Gram Sabha unanimously selected these two petitioners as “Shiksha Mitra”, but no reasons have been assigned as to why only the petitioners were selected. There was also no reason assigned, as to why, other candidates were eliminated, thus cancelled the selection of these petitioners.

¶29

The procedure, as laid down in Memo No.471 dated 8.6.2005 suggests as to how the selection has to be made. The eligibility criteria for the candidates are (i) Residency and (ii) Minimum Qualification. In case, the minimum qualification and other criteria is found to be same in respect of the candidates, then preference will be given to female candidate. This clearly suggests that Para Teacher/Shiksha Mitra has to be “selected” and not “elected”.

¶30

-3-

¶31

From the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, I find that these two petitioners were given appointment letter as the majority of Gram Sabha supported them. This is a process of “election” and not “selection”. I further find that Gram Sabha has not selected the petitioners rather they have elected them. This fact finds strength from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, wherein he has mentioned that the procedure was absolutely opaque. Nothing has been mentioned as to why, only the petitioners have been offered the said post and why the others were eliminated. When a person has been selected for a particular post and there are other contenders, the reasons for selecting such person must be mentioned. Why the other candidates have been eliminated, should also be mentioned. Tabular chart should have been prepared projecting the qualification of the candidates as per rule. That exercise has also not been carried out in the instant case, which is evident from the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, after proper inquiry, has questioned the process for selection of para teacher/Shikhas Mitra, adopted by Gram Sabha. Since, the said process of selection was opaque and not transparent, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa recommended to cancel the appointment of the petitioners. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa was followed by the impugned order disengaging the petitioners.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no illegality has been committed while passing the order impugned, as the appointment of the petitioners were not in accordance with law and the procedure, and being opaque. Thus, the petitioners have rightly been disengaged. 14. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶33

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶34

Anu/-C.P.2

Ramprit Singh And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ramprit Singh And Anr. 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

Mantu Alias Gulam Yasin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sachin Kumar Alias Sanni Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Ravidas Alias Chousath Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Deo Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vinay Ekka Alias Binay Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.