Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 3622 of 2011 Shiv Ram Kisku & ors. ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand and ors. ... ... Respondents with WP(S) No. 3901 of 2011 Ravi Kant Bharti ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and ors. ... ... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioners :M/s. S.Prasad & A.K.Jha For the Respondents :M/s. A.Chatterjee, JC to Sr.SC I & Sunil Singh, JC to SC II 4 11.9.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In W.P.(S) No. 3622 of 2011 there are thirteen petitioners in all while in W.P.(S) No. 3901 of 2011 there is sole petitioner. All these petitioners have approached this Court with their grievances that they have been restrained from discharging their duties as para teachers in different schools in Meharma Block in the District of Godda. The petitioners have also a grievance that respondents have not released their salary though they had discharged their duties in the respective schools till August 2010. According to these petitioners, after following all the procedure and obtaining the approval, they were selected as para teachers and posted in different school of Meharma Block, District Godda and appointment letters were issued on 25.03.2010. Thereafter, they joined respective schools where they are posted and started discharging their duties. They have got the requisite qualifications as well. However, certain anonymous complaints were made without any basis relating to their appointments, on which order has been passed on 26.08.2010 by the District Superintendent of Education, vide Annexure3, by which they have been stopped from discharging their duties. Therefore, they have moved this Court as they have not been given any notice before 2. issuing of such an order. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. They have exhaustively dealt with the procedures under which appointment of para teachers is to be made. However it has been stated on their behalf that a complaint has been received relating to genuineness of the appointment of these petitioners. The inquiry was directed to be conducted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda. Upon submission of such inquiry the Deputy Commissioner, Godda has directed that the petitioners be restrained from discharging their duties. The report has been annexed as Annexure6 to the writ application. It, however, does not appear from the statement made on behalf of the respondents that any final decision has been taken on the basis of such report by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Godda. It also does not appear that the inquiry report, Annexure6, was prepared after giving any notice to the petitioners to respond the same. In such circumstances, therefore, it appears that though any final decision has not been taken in respect of appointment of the petitioners by the competent authority, the petitioners have been restrained from discharging their duties as para teachers in the respective schools on the basis of inquiry report, Annexure6, under the signature of Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is, therefore, desirable that the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Godda takes a final decision by passing a reasoned and speaking in accordance with law after giving at least one opportunity to these petitioners to show cause in the matter of their appointments within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Godda, should also consider and take a decision on claim of salary of these petitioners in the same order passed, which should be also communicated to the individual petitioners.
3. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. I.A. No. 4294 of 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 3622 of 2011 and I.A. No. 4295 of 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 3901 of 2011 also stand disposed of. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Pandey