KALPANA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 674 of 2005 whereby the writ petitioner/respondent No. 6 herein was directed to be issued appointment letter, if already not issued and be allowed to work as para teacher and shall be paid salary in accordance with law. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by learned counsel for the appellant are that, the State of Jharkhand issued an advertisement inviting applications from the persons, specially the female candidates of the villages, who have minimum qualification of Intermediate to be appointed as "Shiksha Mitra/Sahyogi Shikshika (para teacher)" under a scheme for imparting education to the students in the Centre, where more than 60 students are studying. It is further stated that as per the minutes of the meeting held on 11.01.2003 in village Bela, in which several persons were present, the appellant was asked to teach the students of the said village in terms of the scheme known as Shiksha Mitra and in terms of the decision taken in general meeting the appellant was appointed for which a letter of appointment vide letter No. 52 of 07.07.2003 has been issued by the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 6 herein claimed that she possessed the basic requirement to the post as provided under the scheme. Alleging that the State-respondents acted in violation of the guidelines for the appointment and that her case was not considered for appointment, the respondent No. 6 herein filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 674 of 2005. Referring the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the respondent No. 6 herein be issued the appointment letter if not already issued and that she may be allowed to work as para teacher and shall be paid salary in accordance with law.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant (respondent No. 6 in the writ petitioner) filed the present appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Verma for the State and Mr. Alok Lal for respondent No. 6 herein.