Md. Sahjahan @ Shahjahan and anr. and Nand Lal Pandey and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.order1. all the appellants/ writ petitioners are having qualification of physical educational training. they claim for their appointment to the post of primary teacher in primary school in pursuance of the advertisement published by the jharkhand public service commission (hereinafter to be referred as j.p.s.c.) on 24th august, 2002. their prayer for appointment was rejected by the learned single judge on the ground that physical trained teachers cannot be appointed on the post of primary teachers on the other hand those, who possessed qualification of trained teacher i.e. b.ed./dip-in-teach, are entitled for appointment.2. similar issue fell for consideration before a division bench of this court in l.p.a. no. 161 of 2004, ashok kumar dangi and ors. v. state of jharkhand and ors., 2006.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. All the appellants/ writ petitioners are having qualification of physical educational training. They claim for their appointment to the post of primary teacher in Primary School in pursuance of the advertisement published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as J.P.S.C.) on 24th August, 2002. Their prayer for appointment was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that physical trained teachers cannot be appointed on the post of primary teachers on the other hand those, who possessed qualification of trained teacher i.e. B.Ed./Dip-in-teach, are entitled for appointment.

2. Similar issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 161 of 2004, Ashok Kumar Dangi and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2006 (2) JCR 139 (Jhr) and analogous cases, disposed of on 23rd December, 2005. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, the Court held as follows:

(i) The Government of Jharkhand till date has got no definite Scheme/ policy regarding number/ratio of the posts of physical trained teachers.

(ii) There is no different cadre of such physical trained teachers in the Primary School.

(iii) No separate posts were/are created either by the then Punified State of Bihar or by the newly reorganized State of Jharkhand.

(iv) The then State of Bihar had issued a Scheme/policy decision for appointment of physical trained teachers to the extent of 5% of the existing vacancies of the primary teachers.

(v) That as is evident from a decision taken with respect to the appointment of physical trained teachers in the middle schools issued by Letter No. 885 dated 29th November, 1980 each schools were to be provided with a physical trained teacher.

(vi) The said policy decision of the unified State of Bihar has not been modified nor any other policy decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not distinguish the case of the appellants with that of the case of Ashok Kumar Dangi and others (supra).

4. Having found the case of appellants/writ petitioners being covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Dangi and others, we set aside the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2003 and 12th December, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5440 of 2003 and in W.P. (S) No. 6118 of 2003 respectively and dispose of both appeals with same and similar observations and directions as given in the Case of Ashok Kumar Dangi and others (supra).