Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Paswan vs Human Resource Development on 12 September, 2017
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No.3762 of 2013
Santosh Paswan son of Shree Durgi Paswan, resident of Village
Kolhuwa Kala, Post Office Tilaiya Dam and Police Station Barhi,
District Hazaribagh .... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Post Office and Police Station Dhurwa,
District Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, State of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Post Office and Police Station Dhurwa,
District Ranchi
4. The Deputy CommissionercumChairman, Jharkhand Education
Project, District Hazaribagh, Post Office, Police Station and
District Hazaribagh
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, Post
Office, Police Station and District Hazaribagh
6. The Block Development Officer, Barhi3, Post Office and Police
Station Barhi and District Hazaribagh
7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Barhi3, Post Office and
Police Station Barhi and District Hazaribagh
.... ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, JC to GPVI
03/12.09.2017Prayer in the writ petition is for quashing letter dated 27.05.2013 and for a direction to the respondents to pay honorarium to the petitioner from 08.03.2010 till date.
2. The petitioner claims that in the Gram Sabha held on 10.02.2010, he was selected by the Village Education Committee as parateacher for New Primary School, Ganjhudih. He asserts that in the Aam Sabha held on 06.03.2010, his selection as parateacher cumsecretary of the school was affirmed and he has continued to work in the said school. Suddenly, by letter dated 27.05.2013, a parateacher namely, Subhash Yadav from another school was posted on deputation in the said school. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said letter dated 27.05.2013, the 2 respondent authority has not disclosed the fate of the petitioner, and since the petitioner continued to work in the said school, he is entitled for payment of honorarium.
3. Admittedly, appointment of the petitioner as parateacher has not been approved by the Block Level Education Committee. Under the extant guidelines, approval by the Block Education Committee is sine qua non for a valid appointment. The claim of the petitioner for payment of honorarium for the period he allegedly worked cannot be granted in view of his appointment not approved by the Block Level Education Committee. Appointment of another parateacher namely, Subhash Yadav in place of the petitioner would amount to order of removal of the petitioner from the school.
4. Finding no infirmity in the order dated 27.05.2013, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Pankaj