MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF TIRIL ROAD, KOKAR, P.O. BARIYATU, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT OF JHARKKHAND, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing of the letter dated 12.06.2006, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2), whereby it has been stated that the prepositional statement sent for fixation of pay of the petitioner cannot be approved, because of the fact that the age of the petitioner is above for appointment of all the categories of the teacher and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the letter dated 12.01.2007, issued by the Secretary, Yogda Satsang (Respondent No. 5) pertaining to discontinuance of the service of the petitioner.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner being fully qualified having done his M.A. and thereafter having undergone Teachers' Training had obtained the certificate for Matric Trained vide Annexure-1. The Managing Committee of the Yogda Satsang Vidyalaya, Jagannathpur, Ranchi vide order dated 27.08.1999, appointed the petitioner on purely temporary basis, which was extended continuously from time to time as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2003, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the said post would be filled up on regular basis through the regular process of selection as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thereafter, an advertisement was published under the signature of the Secretary of the School inviting the application for appointment of the post of teacher on 27.06.2003, vide Annexure-4. The petitioner in pursuance to the said advertisement applied, which was accepted by the Managing Committee and accordingly, letter was issued in favour of the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear on 31st Aug., 2003 as per Annexure-5. A list of candidates was prepared and published thereafter by the Managing Committee for the post of Assistant Teacher vide an order dated 03.09.2003, in which the name of the petitioner stood at Serial No.5. The interview of the petitioner was taken and vide order dated 03.09.2003, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher by the Selection Committee as per Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Secretary of the School on 12.09.2003 and the petitioner was directed to join latest by Sept., 2003 as per Annexure-8. The petitioner pursuant to the said appointment letter joined the services on 15.09.2003 as per Annexure-9. A letter was issued by the D.S.E., Ranchi, dated 10.03.2004, stating therein, that the petitioner's name has been approved vide a letter dated 16.01.2004, as evident from Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It has been further stated that the Deputy Director, State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 29.04.2004 conducted an enquiry with regard to the age of the petitioner from the D.S.E., Ranchi as per Annexure-11 and reply to the said letter, the D.S.E. wrote a letter stating, therein, that in the letter dated 10.01.1986, issued by the Government of Bihar, Education Department, in para 5, it has been stated that there has been no minimum age fixed for appointment of teacher in minority School and for payment of salary, only bar is that the person should not be above the age of 58 years as per Annexure-12. Vide letter dated 12.06.2006, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi the prepositional statement for payment of the salary of the petitioner has not been approved by the Director, stating therein, that the age of the petitioner is more than the prescribed age for payment of teacher for all the categories, as evident from Annexure-13. It has further been averred in the writ application that one Smt. Swarnamayee Dev Burman, who was held to be over age, her age was condoned by the order of the Deputy Director, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, as evident from Annexure-14. Thereafter, the petitioner was dis-continued from the services by the order passed by the Secretary, Yogda Satsang Vidyalaya vide order dated 12.01.2007, as evident from Annexure-15 in I.A. No. 204 of 2007. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bharti Singh, learned J.C. to Sr. S.C. III for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5.