Jharkhand High Court
Hari Nandan Singh And Anr vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 May, 2016
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 4417 of 2014
1. Hari Nandan Singh
2. Shankar Das ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
Director, Project Jharkhand Education
on Council, Ranchi
2. Dy. Commissioner, Deoghar
3. District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar
4. District Programme Officer, Deoghar
5. District Welfare Officer, Deoghar .........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondents : J. C. to A. G.
5/9.5.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 claim to be the Secretary of two Non governmental Organizations i.e,. Gram Lok Nav Nirman Samiti and Dalit Mukti Mission , Khijuria, Deoghar, who were accorded permission to run two residential schools with 100 students who were in the category of released bounded labour as per letter no. 489 dated 28th November, 2008 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, respondent no. 2 and District Superintendent of Education, respondent no.3 Deoghar and pursuant thereto letter dated 14th December, 2008 bearing Memo no. SSA/1750 were issued by respondent no. 3 to the two Nongovernmental Organizations. Petitioners' proposal submitted before District Level Committee has also been forwarded to the Director, Jharkhand State Education Project Council, Ranchi with recommendation of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide Memo no. SSA/2169 (Annexure3) dated 7th February, 2009. However, according to the petitioners, payment for expenses made towards running of the school have not been released in their favour for the period 6.12. 2008 to 31st March, 2009 Respondent no. 3, in his counter affidavit, has stated that evaluation of financial and technical proposal is to be carried out as per criteria prescribed enumerated at paras11 and 12 thereof such as (a) NGOs should be having a proven track record on similar assignment; (b) It 2. should consist of an adequate number of experienced field staff conversant with the local culture and language, and the socioeconomic dimensions of the beneficiary groups; (c) It should be registered as a society or have other corporate status; (d) It should have facilities to maintain separately records and accounting/auditing of funds allocated for the assignment; (e) It should possess internal stability so as to ensure long term support and (f) It should not have been blacklisted by Central Social Welfare Bord or the Council for the Advancement of Peoples Action & Rural Technology.
Only upon considering of this aspect and approval by the State GrantinAid Committee of draft proposal submitted, the petitioners were entitled to start residential school on their behalf and claim payment for expenses undertaken in its running. They have failed to substantiate that prior to its opening , their draft proposal was approved.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the project report was neither approved nor rejected. The school was started upon the direction of Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Education Project, Deoghar and the proposal has been sent to the Directer, Jharkhand State Education Project Council vide Annexure3. Respondent should have taken an informed decision on the question after ascertaining all relevant material facts including that the petitioners have actually run the school on such directions.
Taking into account the relevant facts pleaded on behalf of rival parties, it is deemed appropriate that a considered decision be taken on the representation of the petitioners by Director, Jharkhand State Education Project Council upon due verification of all relevant records and the guidelines and instructions issued by Jharkhand State Education Project Council on that lines. Needless to say petitioners should make a representation within a period of 3 weeks from today enclosing with all supporting facts and documents, whereupon the respondent, Director Jharkhand State Education Project Council would consider the same in 3. accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of without making any comments on the merits of claim of the petitioners.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk