RAJESH LAKRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Perused the papers. The petitioner by way of present writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to make payment of the petitioner which is illegally withheld from May, 1997 to till date.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Assistant teacher in the year 1993 and accordingly, he joined the service with effect from 21.1.1993, The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is rendering his service as an Assistant teacher, he has been denied salary of Assistant teacher since 1997 on the ground that his appointment was not approved by the State Government as he was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post in question i.e. requisite training which is required for the said post. The petitioner was treated as untrained teacher. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5639 of 2004 on 28.3.2007 wherein in similar facts and situation this Court gave necessary direction to the State Government to the extent that the petitioners are entitle to the benefit of pay scale applicable to the untrained teacher which was revised from time to time fill he gets training. The management of the school was directed to see that the petitioner gets training from an institution recognized by the Government of Jharkhand as early as possible. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited the attention to the Rule 4 of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rules, 1993. While referring the said Rule 4 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case or the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the provision contained in Rule 4 of the said Rules.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the State referred to and relied upon paragraph-13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and submitted that no appointment of untrained teachers has been made in any of the Government or Government Aided Schools after creation of new State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that even at the time of appointment of the petitioner, Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 specifically provided that appointment of teachers should be made in accordance with service rules and training was an essential ingredient for such appointment. It is further submitted that letter No. 116 dated 5.3.1991 is only an administrative instruction by which necessity of training was replaced by service teachers training and this administrative instruction cannot be override the provisions of training, which has been provided by the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, as such the prayer and claim of the petitioner is not tenable and petition deserves to be dismissed.