DUKHHARAN SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing the office order issued by the respondent no.4 vide memo dated 07.09.2012 declaring the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Para Teachers as irregular in pursuance to the order dated 05.07.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No.2502 of 2008 and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in services with consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application in brief is that the respondent no.6 was appointed on 12.06.2003 as Para Teacher of newly Upgraded Primary School, Barkutte and submitted representation dated 04.07.2005 for grant of leave for 3 months due to illness and the leave was sanctioned by the respondent no.5 on 05.07.2005. The respondent no.6 also submitted her representation before Deputy Commissioner for payment of honorarium for 6 months for which she has discharged her duties. In its meeting dated 18.10.2005, it was resolved to the effect since respondent no.6 is on leave and she is only matriculate, the petitioners who possessed the requisite qualification of Intermediate, were appointed on the post of Para Teacher and the petitioner no.1 was selected as a Secretary and accordingly then their names were recommended for approval. Thereafter, Gram Siksha Samittee submitted representation dated 05.12.2005 before the respondent no.3 for payment and approval of the petitioners. After being appointed, the petitioners were sent for training and they completed 2 years training from IGNOU in 2008. The respondent no.6 due to non -payment of honorarium and other reliefs filed writ application bearing W.P.(S) No.2502 of 2008 and the said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2012 with direction to respondent no.3 to take a decision on the representation of respondent no.6 dated 17.02.2004 at Annexure -6 and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.4 through his letter dated 25.08.2012 asked the petitioner no.1 to appear on 29.08.2012 alongwith all the records and the petitioner no.1 being Secretary of the Gram Siksha Samittee produced the relevant records. It is also averred in the writ application that the Gram Siksha Samittee filed representation dated 31.08.2012 contending that the points raised by the respondent no.6 as false and fabricated and demanded enquiry about the validity of the appointment of respondent no.6 but respondent no.4 without going through relevant record and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed order dated 07.09.2012 declaring the appointment of the petitioners as irregular. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy have approached this Court invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 07.09.2012 declaring the appointment of the petitioners as irregular without giving opportunity to them is violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of the respondents in allowing respondent no.6 to perform the duty of Para Teacher notwithstanding that her appointment was invalid and she was continuously absent from duty for more than six months which is nothing but a colourable exercise of power.