SURESH PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Bharati Singh, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C. III appearing for the Respondents-State.

(2.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Para-Teacher in the Upgraded Primary School at Village Phuljora in the District of Dumka.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that in pursuance to the public notice, published in the Daily News Paper, 8 candidates have applied for the post of Para-teachers with their requisite qualifications including the present petitioner and by virtue of the Resolution taken by the Gram Sabha held on 19/2/2007, one Dilip Maraiya (Respondent No. 6) was selected for the post of Para-Teacher. Being aggrieved by the non-selection of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and District Superintendent of Education-cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka regarding the false certificate of the respondent no. 6 and the petitioner has also filed an application to the Block Education Extension Officer, Ramgarh regarding the certificate of the Respondent No. 6, stating therein, that at the time of selection, the Respondent No. 6 has produced the false matriculation certificate. It has been averred in the writ application that relying on the documents produced by the petitioner, the Block Education Extension Officer, enquired about the matter and it was found that although the Respondent No. 6 appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1991, but he has been declared failed by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and his date of birth in the admit Card is 6/9/1975. It has been further averred that ignoring the requisite qualification of the petitioner to the post of Para Teacher, the Gram Sabha has selected the Respondent No. 6, who has false certificates and being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed several representations before the concerned respondents authority to enquire into the qualification of the respondent no. 6, but the same did not yield any result. Left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.