NINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No. 6255/2004, WPS No. 5476/2004 and WPS No. 5546/2004 submits that the petitioners of these writ petitions holding a qualification of physical trained teacher after having participated in the advertisement of 2002, issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), were recommended for appointment in the district of Palamau by the JPSC. The District Education Establishment Committee considered the recommendation and thereafter appointment letters were issued to the these petitioners in different Elementary / Middle Schools on the post of physical trained teacher. Petitioners' appointment were however terminated by the impugned order dated 25th August 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advertisement was issued inviting application from all categories of trained teachers including those of physical trained teacher in terms of rule 2(Kha) of Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002 which are framed for appointment of teachers in primary schools in the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process, though there was amendment subsequently on 6th March 2003 confining qualification of CPEd / DPEd in respect of physical trained teachers in the appointment rules of 2002. Petitioners duly participated in the recruitment exercise and were recommended by the JPSC and appointed as such also on the post of physical trained teachers. It is pointed out by reference to annexure-23 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 16th April 2009 in WPS No. 5476/2004 that in the district of Palamau, there were five vacant posts of physical trained teachers. It is submitted that once appointments were made on the basis of recommendation made by the JPSC of 354 candidates for the district of Palamau, petitioners could not be blamed for any illegality or lack of eligibility for being appointed and continued thereafter in service.

(3.) However, respondents have chosen to terminate the appointment of these petitioners on the ground that there was no recommendation by the JPSC in respect of physical trained teachers for any of the districts. It is submitted that once appointment was made, petitioners had an accrued legal right to continue in service and that could only be curtailed after following the principles of natural justice which has not been done. It is submitted that the impugned order is nonspeaking order. Learned counsel has also referred to the minutes of the District Education Establishment Committee, Palamau dated 24th August 2004 which is part of the same supplementary affidavit (Annexure-25) and submits that the only reason for cancellation of their appointment is that the JPSC later on informed that there was no recommendation in their favour as they were in the category of physical trained teachers. The State Government had also informed that there was no vacancy indented for the physical trained teacher. In these circumstances, cases of the present petitioners are distinguishable from those decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Versus Ashok Kumar Dangi and others, 2011 13 SCC 383 as relied by the respondents.