Ram Prasad Hazari Vs Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2150 of 2017

Ram Prasad Hazari, son of Sri Barkhu Hazari, resident of Village Palsiya, P.O. Chamru Baihar, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka. … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, PO. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, having office at P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka.

¶6

The District Superintendent of Education-cumDistrict Programme Officer, Dumka, having office at Khuttabhandh, P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka,

¶7

The Block Education Extension Officer, Jarmundi, having office at P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, District-Dumka. 5. Village Education Committee, through its President, Upgraded Primary School, having office at VillageKuruwatola Belgumma, P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, DistrictDumka.

¶8

Jharkhand Education Project Council, having office at Mecon Campus, Doranda, P.O + P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. .……Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv.

¶13

: Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Adv.

¶14

For the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv.

¶15

CAV ON:11.09.2025 Pronounced On:-23/09/2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

1

¶18

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

¶19

by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶20

(i) For quashing and setting aside the decision contained in letter no. 84 dated 21.2.2017 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 4, whereby, the application of the petitioner to continue on his post and for payment of salary/ honorarium has been rejected. (ii) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary/honorarium to the petitioner from 6.1.2012 onwards, as the petitioner has been working on the post of Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Kuruwatola Belgumma, Jarmundi in the district of Dumka, but, however, the respondents. have failed to pay the salary/honorarium thereof to the petitioner.

¶21

(iii) To also direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Kuruwatola Belgumma, Jarmundi in Dumka district, in view of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated in service by the Village Education Committee, in its meeting dated 6.1.2012, after the petitioner was granted bail in Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 183 of 2010 (corresponding to G.R. No. 1385 of 2010) by the order dated 18.4.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in B.A. No. 615 of 2010.

¶22

(iv) Alternatively, to quash and set aside the decision contained in proceeding dated 11.12.2010 of the Village Education Committee, Kuruwatola Belgumma, Jarmundi in Dumka district, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated, as also to reinstate the

¶23

2

¶24

petitioner in service with back wages from 11.12.2010 onwards and pay all consequential benefits thereof.

¶25

3. Briefly stated, on 1.4.2004, Petitioner was appointed on the post of Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Kuruwatola Belgumma in Jarmundi Block in the district of Dumka and he joined on the same day.

¶26

On 12.11.2010, Petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 183 of 2010. On 11.12.2010 (Annexure-2) services of the petitioner was terminated by Village Education Committee, Upgraded Primary School, Kuruwatola Belgumma.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been permitted to join as Para Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Kuruwatola Belgumma.

¶28

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, that the Petitioner was enlarged on bail, he made representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka to allow him to continue in service and for payment of salary.

¶29

Upon this, the District Superintendent of Education, requested the Government Pleader, Dumka to give opinion as to whether the petitioner can be

¶30

3

¶31

allowed to work on his post or not. On 27.12.2011 (Annexure-5), learned Government Pleader gave his opinion, which suggests that there was no impediment to allow the petitioner to continue on his post. On 6.1.2012 (Annexure-6), thereafter, Village Education Committee, Kuruwatola Belgumma, took a decision to reinstate the petitioner on his post.

¶32

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka stating inter alia that despite he has been allowed to work from 22.4.2011, after reinstatement of his service, he has not been paid his salary. Thereafter, District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, directed the Block Education Extension Officer, Jarmundi to do the needful in the matter in accordance with law. However, on 21.2.2017 (Annexure-12), the Block Education Extension Officer, Jarmundi has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of honorarium/salary and to allow him to continue on his post.

¶33

Learned counsel further contented that the impugned order is also stigmatic in nature and is nonspeaking and non-reasoned order and has been passed without following principle of natural justice.

¶34

5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the JEPC vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner

¶35

4

¶36

and submitted that the petitioner was a contractual employee and since he was taken into custody; as such his services were terminated and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶37

He also referred an order passed by this Court in the case of a similarly situated person rendered in W.P.(S) No.1660 of 2016¹ .

¶38

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis for one year. Subsequently his contract was never extended. Thus, the contractual period had already lapsed. Hence, the decision of Block Education Committee, Jarmundi is justified and legal, as per order dated 24.11.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1660/2016, by which it has been held in similar situation that once the Para Teacher is taken into custody and no information is given seeking leave or extension; such contractual engagement stood terminated and no order of reinstatement can be passed.

¶39

For brevity relevant portion is extracted herein

¶40

below:-

¶41

“3. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was appointed as Para Teacher on 05.05.2007, was arrested in

¶42

1 Parmeshwar Bhagat Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors

¶43

5

¶44

connection with T.R.Case No.429 of 2014. He remained in judicial custody between 01.09.2013 to 03.12.2013. After his release from jail, he submitted an application on 27.09.2014 for permitting him to join as Para Teacher, however, by impugned order dated 16.10.2014, he has been informed that there is no provision for engaging a Para Teacher who has remained in judicial custody. From letter dated 16.10.2014 it appears that the petitioner did not inform the department of his arrest in the criminal case. The contention that the petitioner has been acquitted in T.R.Case No.429 of 2014 which entitles him to seek reinstatement in service, is misconceived. The petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher on contract basis and subsequently his contract was extended. During the period he remained in judicial custody, the contractual period already lapsed.

¶45

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ-petition is dismissed.”

¶46

Emphasis Supplied 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the

¶47

instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.As. if any, also closed.

¶48

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶49

September 23, 2025

¶50

Fahim/Jharkhand High Court, Ranch. AFR/NAFR