DHARMENDRA PRADHAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing of order as contained in Memo No. SSA/36, dated 30.1.2012 (Annexure -5) issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the concerned Respondent has refused to permit/allow the petitioners to work as Para -Teachers in Government Middle Shool, Murup and further prayed for quashing the Memo No. 117, dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure -6), issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby the concerned Respondent has issued direction upon the Headmaster of the Government Middle School, Murup to disallow the petitioners from discharging their duties as Para -Teachers in the said School and consequently for a direction upon the Respondents -authorities to permit the petitioners to discharge their duties as Para -Teachers in Government Middle School, Murup and further to pay their regular salary.

(2.) The factual matrix sans details, in a nutshell is that the petitioners were appointed as Para -Teachers in Government Middle School, Murup, after due process of law. It has been stated in the writ application that vide Letter dated 2.6.2008 of the Government of Jharkhand, notice was put in the Block Resource Centre for selection and appointment of two Para -Teachers for Government Middle School, Murup, on or before 1.7.2008 and accordingly, the information was circulated in the concerned village on 11.6.2008 and the same was also put on notice in the Government Middle School, Murup. It has been submitted in the writ application that the Village Level Education Committee, in its meeting held on 17.06.2008, had approved and recommended the case of the petitioners for appointment as Para - Teachers to the Block Education Extension Officer, Seraikella. It has been averred in the writ application that save and except the petitioners, there was no other applicant for the post of Para -Teachers in the concerned Middle School, Murup. In the light of the recommendation and approval dated 17.6.2008 of the Village Level Education Committee, in favour of the petitioners, the concerned Respondents - authorities vide letter dated 5.7.2008, accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Para -Teachers in the Government Middle School, Murup Seraikella which is evident from Letter dated 23.10.2010 of the Respondent No. 5 and the Letter dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure -1 series) of the Head -Master, Government Middle School, Murup. The petitioners, in the light of the appointment letters mentioned hereinabove (Annexure -1 series), have submitted their joining in the Government Middle School, Murup, on 5.7.2008, which was duly accepted by the Head -Master of the concerned School and this fact was communicated to the Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 7.7.2008 of the Head Master, Government Middle School, Murup. It has been further averred in the writ application that the petitioner no. 1 was also entrusted the duty of census in the year 2011 by the Block Development Officer, Saraikella, vide Memo dated 24.01.2011, indicating him as Para -Teacher. The petitioners thereafter diligently rendered their duties to the satisfaction of superior authorities and continued to discharge their duties for almost for a period of two years but the petitioners were not being paid their salary by the concerned Respondent -authorities and subsequently by the orders of Respondent No. 5, the petitioners were illegally stopped from discharging their duties. It has been further stated that being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Respondents -authorities, the petitioners moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 1268 of 2011, praying for payment of salary for the period they have worked and the said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2011. It has been further stated in writ application that in the light of directions of this Court, the Respondent No. 3 disposed of the claim of the petitioners vide Memo No. SSA/36 dated 30.1.2012, whereby the concerned Respondent - authorities on the one hand found the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary to be sustainable, but on the other hand, restrained the petitioners to continue on the post of Para -Teachers, on the ground of absence of necessary documents and records pertaining to approval of the appointment of the petitioners after about four years of their selection. It has been further averred in the writ application that such conclusion of the Respondent No. 3, was on account of non -submission of necessary documents by the Respondent No. 4 and/or respondent No. 5 relating to appointment of the petitioners and such action of the aforesaid respondents is completely illegal and unexplained. It has been further submitted in the writ application that all the necessary documents pertaining to Notice for appointment of Para -Teachers in the Government Middle School, Murup and the entire process of the selection at the Village Level Education Committee are in the custody of the Head -Master of the concerned school, who after selection of the Petitioners had forwarded the necessary documents to the higher authorities for approval and accordingly, the appointment letters dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure -1 series) was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Respondent No. 4 and the stand taken by the respondents for termination of the petitioners is mala fide, arbitary and devoid of any merit. It has been further stated that in the light of Annexure -4, the petitioners have been paid their due salary for the period of services rendered and evident as per the attendance register of the concerned School, but subsequently have been stopped from discharging their duties by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, vide Memo dated 30.01.2012 and 5.5.2012 of the Respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination and left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigating their grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned J.C. to G.P. -VI for the respondent -State.