ATAUL ANSARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied amended writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the impugned order, as contained in the memo dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure -8), issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, pertaining to termination of services and for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents for payment of salary for working period from February, 2006 till 05.06.2008.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide memo dated 28.02.2004, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka upon the recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The name of the petitioner found place at Serial No. 32 as per Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Guideline has been issued by the Principal Secretary of Education, in the letter dated 16.02.2004, wherein, it has been declared that those teachers who have obtained Teachers Training prior to 17.08.1995 from other States shall give an Affidavit regarding genuineness of their Teachers' Training Certificate. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner has obtained Teachers Training Certificate from R.G. Polytechnic, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and after final examination of the Sessions 1989 -90. The genuineness of the Teachers Training Certificate obtained by the petitioner has been confirmed by the letter dated 30.07.2004 by the Director, R.G. Polytechnic, New Delhi. The petitioner after joining the post, has received his salary from 15.05.2004 till January, 2006, but to the utter consternation of the petitioner, his salary was stopped from February, 2006 onwards though the petitioner continued to discharge his duties till the date of his termination i.e. 05.06.2008. Due to stoppage of salary, on facing acute financial crisis, the petitioner submitted his representation, and on receipt of the representation, the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, directed the D.S.E., Dumka vide letter dated 27.12.2007 to take appropriate action after placing the matter before the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, as is evident from Annexure -7 to the writ petition. Initially, the writ petition was filed for payment of the arrears of salary and current salary, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka vide impugned Office order dated -05.06.2008, terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect as per Annexure -8 to the writ petition. In the writ application, it has been submitted that in a similar matter, W.P. (S) No. 5344 of 2008, this Court while disposing of the writ application vide order dated 11.12.2008, has been pleased to quash the impugned order, wherein, the teachers had obtained Teachers Training Certificate from R.G. Polytechnic, New Delhi and in another matter in W.P. (S) No. 4124 of 2008, this Court vide order dated 21.05.2015, has been pleased to quash the termination order, wherein, the question of recognition by the N.C.T.E. was in issue. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgments.

(3.) Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of termination has been passed without proper departmental proceeding as per the provisions of the Bihar State Nationalized Elementary School Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary action) Rules, 1994 and the amended Rules, 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the termination of services by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka without approval of the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that his Teachers' Training Certificate is not valid, when as a matter of fact, the petitioner obtained certificate, prior to the implementation of the N.C.T.E Act, when the recommendation by the N.C.T.E. was not mandatory, the termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.