MD. FEKARUL SHAIKH SON OF SAHADAT SHAIKH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAVING OFFICE AT PROJECT BUILDING, P.O. & P.S. DHURWA, TOWN AND DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (respondent no. 2) and for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Para Teacher with admissible salary/honorarium.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as emanated from the writ application, is that the Secretary of the Middle School, Anjana in the District of Pakur was directed to select Para Teachers as per the Government instruction dated 26.12.2005 whereby the minimum qualification for appointment as Para Teachers from Class-I to Class V was Intermediate as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. In pursuance to the direction dated 27.06.2007 vide Annexure-3, the Aam Sabha was held on 02.07.2007 for appointment of Para Teacher in the School in question. Out of 13 candidates, the petitioner was selected and the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 2 in the list of selected candidates dated 02.07.2007 as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the competent authority at the Block level and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his joining on 25.10.2007 which was accepted by the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work as Para Teacher in the said school and was paid salary/honorarium from 25.10.2007. On the basis of complaint made by respondent no. 4, the respondent no.2 who happens to be the Chairman of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan cancelled the selection of the petitioner by order dated 05.06.2008 vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. It has been asserted in the writ application that the respondent no.4 was appointed as Para Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Sitesh Nagar of which he is a permanent resident and respondent no. 4 also accepted an agreement on 01.07.2009 vide Annexure-11 to the writ application and as such he cannot claim another appointment in the present school in question. Being aggrieved by cancellation of selection, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4325 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 20.03.2012 was pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent, looking to the minimum qualification so prescribed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondent no.2 in pursuance to order of this Court, vide order impugned dated 29.06.2012 has directed for re-holding of Aam Sabha for selection of Para Teacher afresh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (respondent no. 2) vide Annexure-14, the petitioner left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted that despite valid service of notice, the respondent no. 4 chose not to contest the writ application. Moreover, the respondent no. 4 has been appointed as a subject expert in Block Resource Centre, Maheshpur from 11.04.2011, therefore, the respondent no. 4 does not have any interest to join as Para Teachers. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for respondent no. 2 to direct for fresh selection of Para Teacher in the school in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not disputed the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition so far as minimum educational qualification of Para Teacher from Class-I to Class-V is concerned. Moreover, the petitioner has also undergone Diploma in Primary Education, so the petitioner has got the minimum qualification for appointment to the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the contention of the respondent that Right to Education Act, 2009 has become effective and without training and TET Certificate, no Para Teacher can be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into effect in the State of Jharkhand from April 2010 and the qualification of TET was made mandatory only after the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) came out with notification dated 23rd Aug. 2010 and therefore, these qualifications are not applicable in the present case since the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 itself.