Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3396 of 2009 Asraful Haque, son of Abdul Azim, resident of Lakhanpur, P.O. Zikharhatti, P.S. Pakur (M), District-Pakur …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Sarb Siksha Abhiyan, Pakur 3.District Superintendent of Educaion-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarb Siksha Abhiyan, Pakur 4.Village Education Committee, Primary School, Kismat Lakhanpur, P.O. Zikharhatti, P.S. Pakur (M), District-Pakur, through its Prresident 5.Md. Shamsuddin, resident of Lakhanpur, P.O.Zikharhatti, P.S. Pakur (M), District-Pakur 6.Block Co-ordinator, Block Resources Centre, Pakur, P.O., P.S. and District-Pakur …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ---------- For the Petitioner : M/s Tarun Kr. Mahto, P.A.S. Pati, Adv. For the State : M/s. R.R. Mishra (G.P.II), Amit Kumar, J.C. to G.P.II. For the Respondent no.5 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- nd 8/Dated:22 May, 2015 Per Pramath Patnaik, J:
1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 05.06.2008 pertaining to removal from the post of Para Teacher and allowing respondent no.5 to join the said post and petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to allow him to join in the said post in Primary School, Kismat Lakhanpur.
2. The facts, as delineated and described in the writ application in a nutshell is that in pursuance to selection for the post of Para Teacher, the names of eligible candidates were called for by the Village Education Committee vide its meeting dated 02.07.2007 for selection of Para Teachers (Sahayak Shikshak) and after meeting of the Village Education Committee, the Aam Sabha unanimously selected three persons, namely Md. Shamsuddin (respondent no.5), Md. Mustaque Ahmad and Asraful Haque (petitioner) vide its resolution dated 02.07.2007 and the names of the aforesaid persons were sent to the Block Resource Centre, Pakur for necessary approval. Thereafter, the Block Resource Centre, Pakur, vide letter no.287 dated 30.09.2007 approved the selection of the three persons as Para Teachers as per proceeding dated 19.09.2007. In pursuance to the selection, the petitioner was directed to join the post and started teaching work from 23.10.2007, vide letter dated 17.10.2007 issued by the President of Village Education Committee, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. But to the utter surprise and consternation, the petitioner received order dated 05.06.2008 issued by the respondent no.2, whereby the respondent no.4 was directed to issue appointment letter to the respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the order and the said order is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2008, the petitioner submitted representation before respondent no.2 on 09.09.2008, vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the respondent no.2 directed the District Programme Officer-cum-District Education Officer to enquire into the matter. Pursuant thereto, the Block Co-ordinator, Block Resources Centre, Pakur submitted his report to the District Superintendent of Education -cum- District Programme Officer, wherein it has come to the notice of the District Superintendent of Education -cum-District Programme Officer that the Primary School, Kismat Lakhanpur is a general school and the said report dated 12.11.2008 is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Since on representation of the petitioner, the respondents did not give any response, the petitioner left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter alia stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 that on 22.04.2008, the Deputy Commissioner heard all the parties and examined all the relevant papers and passed a very reasoned order on 05.06.2008 observing therein that selection of respondent no.5 was not approved only on account of his Alim Degree from Madarsa Board and the Jharkhand Education Project Council never issued any letter to the effect that the Para Teachers are not to be appointed on the degree issued by the Madarsa Board. The Deputy Commissioner further observed Notification No.JAC/3233/06 dated 16.09.2006, the Jharkhand Academic Council has clarified that the degree of Madarsa Board has got equal status regarding the appointment in various institutions and as per the said notification degree of Alim is equivalent to graduation. In view of such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner accepted representation of respondent no.5 and his initial selection order by the Village Education Committee was approved and the selection of the petitioner as mentioned as Sl. No.4 of the merit list was revoked/cancelled and the Deputy Commissioner directed the President of Village Education Committee to ensure the joining of respondent no.5 within a week in place of petitioner. Further, it has been submitted in the counter affidavit that as per the merit list the percentage of marks of respondent no.5 in graduation is higher than the other applicants including the petitioner which is evident from the chart. As per the said chart, respondent no.5 has secured 67.25% and the petitioner has secured 52.5%, therefore, the petitioner’s qualification is less than that of the three candidates and the respondent no.5 has secured the higher marks among the candidates. Therefore, the selection of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Sarb Shiksha Abhiyan, Pakur vide order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit). It is further contended in the counter affidavit that although Primary School, Kismat Lakhanpur is a general school but Urdu language is taught there because the majority of students are Muslim. Therefore, repelling the contention of the petitioner, counsel for the respondents submitted that the prayer has been made in the writ petition for dismissal of the writ petition in limine. Respondent no.5 has also filed counter affidavit adopting and reiterating the grounds taken by the respondent no.3.
5. Heard Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar (J.C. to G.P-II) appearing for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.
6. After perusing the documents on record and having given my anxious consideration to the pleadings and hearing the counsels at length, the impugned order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure-2) does not call for any interference by this Court due to following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, in the Aam Sabha three candidates were selected by the Village Education Committee in which the name of the petitioner and respondent no.5 found place and the selection of the respondetnt no.5 was not made purportedly on the ground that the Alim is not equivalent to degree and the matter was examined threadbare by the Deputy Commissioner and it is an admitted position that the respondent no.5 has secured more marks than the petitioner and he has got all the requisite qualification for selection and rightly the respondents have cancelled the selection of the petitioner and in his place respondent no.5 has been permitted to resume the charge, therefore, no illegality could be found in the impugned order dated 05.06.2008. (II) In pursuance to the representation of respondent no.5, the matter was examined thoroughly and the records of the Aam Sabha were placed and the Deputy Commissioner came to the categorical finding that the selection of the petitioner in place of respondent no.5 is illegal because respondent no.5 has secured more marks than the petitioner and his Alim degree is equivalent to degree of graduation as per the notification dated16.09.2006 of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Therefore, the selection of respondent no.5 in place of petitioner as a Para Teacher in pursuance to order dated 05.06.2008 passed by respondent no.2, vide Annexure-2 appears to be justified warranting no interference by this Court.
7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure-2) does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Saket/-