SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, the learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to grant approval to the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Bishop Rockey High School, Gomoh. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.09.2000, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and thereafter the petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 24.03.2001 as Assistant Teacher (Biology) on government sanctioned post in place of Mr. P.N. Massey who retired on 31.12.2000. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was having B.Ed. Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad [Shiksha Visharad ParikshaSamvat, 2052 (1995)]. He refers to Annexure-3/1, letter dated 23.05.1988 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education addressed to the Principal of the school wherein it is said that according to the Hand-Book for Personnel Officer, Government of India, the said University is recognized as such, the person possessing B.Ed. Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is eligible as trained Teacher. Vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the service-book of the petitioner was opened. Thereafter, the District Education Officer made certain queries with the concerned school with regard to petitioner's appointment and approval of the appointment of the petitioner may be confirmed and by letter dated 09.07.2002 the query of the Government has been met with by the Principal of the school where the petitioner was appointed and, thereafter, when nothing was communicated, the Principal of the said school sent a reminder on 09.10.2002 to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand. A certificate in the year 2005 has been issued to the concerned school so far the petitioner is concerned, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is working since 29.03.2001. In the year 2004 Annexure-8 was issued whereby it was informed that the petitioner's service has not been approved as the Government of Jharkhand is not recognizing B.Ed. Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad [Shiksha Visharad Pariksha-Samvat, 2052 (1995)]. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel further submits that in the meantime the petitioner has further passed B.Ed. Examination with Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh in the year 2007 and, thereafter, the petitioner filed a reminder to the Secretary of the school on 15.05.2008. The Secretary of the school by letter dated 12.01.2011 again requested the District Education Officer, Dhanbad for approval of the appointment of the petitioner which is pending since a long with the District Education Officer. Mr. Piprawall, the learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the petitioner and submits that one Akash Jain whose case was also rejected on the ground of non-recognition of the Institute wherefrom he has obtained the Degree, the authority concerned has given approval with regard to Akash Jain who has subsequently obtained B.Ed. Degree from another Institute. To fortify his this stand, he refers to Annexure-14/1 dated 12.01.2007 in reply to the counter-affidavit.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, the learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the State has come forward with the Circular in the year 2004, whereby it was decided that the certificate of the persons who will come under cloud their appointment will not be approved. He submits that on the basis of the Circular of the year 2004 the Government has acted and accordingly, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He further submits that so far the claim of the parity of the petitioner with Akash Jain is concerned, that person has obtained the certificate in the year 2002, prior to the issuance of the Circular of 2004 and, accordingly, the parity argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.