SANJAY KUMAR BOSE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of order contained in Memo dated 16.7.2004, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that, an advertisement was issued on 6.9.1997 in the Daily Newspaper 'The Indian Nation'. The petitioner No. 1 submitted application on 11.9.1997 and the petitioner No. 2 submitted his application on 15.9.1997 and they were called for interview by letter dated 3.11.1997. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were issued appointment letters dated 28.5.1998 and 19.5.1998 and they joined on 29.5.1998 and 20.5.1998 respectively. Thereafter, the Secretary of the school sent the name of the petitioners to the District Education Officer vide letter dated 14.7.1998. The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar sent the approval letter to the Director, Primary Education vide Annexure-9 and 9/1 to the writ petition. Service of the petitioners was approved and their teachers training certificates and matriculation certificates were also verified. It appears that Regional Director, Education, Dumka vide letter dated 24.12.1999 directed the Head Master of Dinbandhu Middle School to send the petitioner no. 2 to undergo 'Service Training' and accordingly, the petitioner was sent for "Service Training" by the Headmaster of the said school by letter dated 4.1.2000. The petitioner no. 2 under-went training at Primary Teachers Training College, Ghormara, Deoghar and on completion of the training by letter dated 15.1.2001 the petitioner no. 2 was relieved for rejoining in his school where he joined on 16.1.2001. The petitioner no. 2 has been declared successful on 13.5.2002 in the result of Service Training examination however, when the salary of the petitioners was not released, the petitioners moved the High Court in W.P. (S) No. 5036 of 2003 which was disposed of on 13.10.2003 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 for considering the grievance of the petitioners. The respondent no. 2 by order dated 16.7.2004 declared the appointment of the petitioners by Managing Committee of the school as irregular on the ground that procedure as laid down in Memo no. 709 dated 4.3.1993 was not followed at the time when the interview for selection was conducted. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have approached this Court again.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that in view of Memo no. 709 dated 4.3.1993, Range Education Officer or District Superintendent of School is required to be present at the time when interview for selection on the post of teachers is to be conducted and since, when the petitioners appeared for interview the said Government representative was not present in the interview-board therefore, their appointment is illegal.

(3.) The petitioners have relied upon an earlier Circular dated 21.7.1983 which lays down that the recommendation of the Managing Committee of the School is required to be approved within 30 days by the Superintendent of Education otherwise, the appointment made by the Managing Committee would be deemed to have been approved.