SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order contained in letter No. 1615 of 19.10.2006 (annexure 5) passed by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co -ordinator, Chatra (respondent No. 5) whereby the petitioner's appointment as para teacher in the Upgraded Primary School, Godara in the district of Chatra, has been cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the jharkhand Education Project Parishad for appointment of teachers in the Upgraded Middle Schools, the petitioner had filed his application. The screening committee of the Gram Siksha Samiti considered his candidature and selected him, among others, for appointment as a teacher in the aforesaid school. List of selected candidates were forwarded to the respondent No. 5 for his approval who, accorded his approval with the direction to the concerned authority to ensure joining of the teachers in the respective schools from the selected list enclosed vide his letter No. 1556 dated H,10.2006 (Annexure 3), Pursuant to the direction, the petitioner who was at serial No. 27 in the chart annexed with annexure 3 to this application, submitted his joining in the school on 16.10.2006 and since then he continued to work as a para teacher in the said school. However, without prior information/knowledge to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 issued the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 whereby the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 4 and 5, It is stated that though the selection list was approved by respondent No. 5 it was forwarded to the concerned officer with the stipulation that the list was only tentative and the appointment of candidates is subject to necessary verification of all the requisite eligibility criteria including the educational qualifications. It is further stated that as per the information collected, the petitioner's qualification was much lower than the qualification possessed by the other candidates and this aspect was ignored by the committee and therefore the petitioner's selection itself was against the procedure, apart from being tentative.