Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023
1. Abhishek Kumar
2. Niranjan Kumar Gupta
3. Mukesh Kumar
4. Arun Kumar Vishwakarma
5. Santosh Kumar Singh
6. Shahanshah Alam
7. Lalan Prasad
8. Ranjit Kumar Singh
9. Santosh Kumar
10.Anuj Kumar Singh
11.Saddam Hussain
12.Mohammad Nure Alam
13.Sudhir Kumar
14.Dharmendra Kumar
15.Rabindra Rajak
16.Binod Vishwakarma
17.Raju Kumar Yadav
18.Sunil Kumar Yadav
19.Punam Kumari
20.Chote Lal Prasad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6083 of 2023
1. Manoj Kumar Singh
2. Santosh Kumar Singh
3. Asha Kumari Devi
4. Vishnupat Kumar
1
5. Vishwanath Singh
6. Sanjit Kumar
7. Santosh Kumar
8. Yogendra Prasad Saw
9. Yugal Kishor Saw
10.Sanjay Ram
11.Sandeep
12.Vijay Kumar Ram
13.Ambika Kumar
14.Anirudh Kumar Singh
15.Babu Ram Sahu
16.Ashok Ram
17.Kamlesh Paswan
18.Anil Kumar Singh
19.Sudama Paswan
20.Satyendra Choudhary
21.Harishankar Yadav
22.Anil Kumar Singh
23.Yogendra Kumar
24.Arunjay Kumar Singh
25.Sanjay Kumar Singh
26.Hari Prakash Singh
27.Sunil Kumar Niraj
28.Afroj Alam
29.Dharmendra Ram
30.Mahfuz Alam
31.Shiv Charan Vishwakarma
32.Md. Anwarul Haque
33.Krishna Kumar Ram
34.Surendra Kumar Ram
35.Pravesh Paswan
36.Akhtar Hussain
37.Sitaram Ram
38.Akhilesh Chaudhary
39.Kusum Kumari
40.Pramod Kumar Pathak
41.Sangita Kumari
42.Mithitesh Kumar Ravi
43.Usha Kumari
44.Ravindar Prasad Sharma
45.Surendra Prasad Sharma
46.Rambarat Yadav
47.Nandkishore Prasad
48.Upendra Kumar Gupta
49.Suchit Kumar
50.Amit Kumar
51.Om Prakash
52.Pooja Kumari
53.Santosh Kumar
54.Chandan Kumar
2
55.Satrudhan Paswan
56.Ramu Kumar
57.Shivnath Thakur
58.Naresh Uranw
59.Nurul Hoda
60.Ajay Vishwakarma
61.Vijay Kumar Saw
62.Sanjay Vishwakarma
63.Santosh Rajak
64.Rajendra Prasad
65.Sumitra Devi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, District-
Ranchi
2. Department of School Education & Literacy Development,
Jharkhand, Dist.- Ranchi
3. State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
Ranchi
4. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development
Department, Dist.- Ranchi
5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Palamau, Dist.- Palamau
6. District Program Officer cum District Superintendent of Education,
Palamau
7. Block Education Extension Officer cum Coordinator Block
Resources Centre, Chhatarpur Block, Dist.- Palamau
8. Block Education Extension Officer cum Coordinator Block
Resources Centre, Naudiha Bazar Block, Dist.- Palamau
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6183 of 2023
1. Rajesh Kumar Mishra
2. Arun Kumar Singh
3. Prayag Rabidas
4. Umesh Kumar
5. Safique Ahmad Ansari
6. Ramnath Ram
7. Ajit Kumar Singh
8. Santosh Kumar Singh
9. Upendra Prasad
10.Avinash Kumar Chouhan ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3
4. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamu Division, District- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Palamu Division,
District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
9. The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. The Deputy Commissioner cum President, Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand
11. The District Education Officer-cum-Program Officer, Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
12. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Additional District
Program Officer, Palamu, Jharkhand.
13. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener,
Chhattarpur Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
14. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener, Naudiha
Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6193 of 2023
1. Enamul Haque
2. Aphsar Ansari
3. Rajendra Kumar Ravi
4. Sushil Kumar
5. Sanjay Ram
6. Ram Tahal Das
7. Kumari Binda
8. Upendra Singh
9. Abid Ansari
10.Arun Kumar Yadav
11.Shweta Gupta
12.Satyadev Singh
13.Md Zafiruddin
14.Manoj Yadav
15.Shriram Choudhary
16.Satyendra Yadav
17.Wokindra Ram
18.Dinesh Prasad Gupta
19.Archana Kumari
20.Priyanka Kumari
21.Vijay Ram
4
22.Asant Paswan ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Chattarpur, District- Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6198 of 2023
1. Satyendra Prasad
2. Manoj Kumar
3. Surendra Singh
4. Dilip Kumar Singh
5. Ashok Kumar Gupta
6. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
7. Mithilesh Yadav
8. Binay Kumar Sahi
9. Bashisht Kumar Yadav
10.Sarita Kumari
11.Shabnam Khatun
12.Navnehal Ansari
13.Shiw Yadav
14.Guddu Prasad Yadav
15.Rahul Ranjan
16.Sakendra Ram
17.Bishwanath Kumar
18.Sanju Kumari ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
5
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6239 of 2023
1. Md. Eqbal
2. Fardinand Kumar
3. Khurshid Alam
4. Kumari Urmila
5. Satyendra Ram
6. Sanaullah
7. Gulam Sarwar Ansari
8. Seema Kumari
9. Kumari Manju Rani
10.Dwarika Singh
11.Shambhu Prasad
12.Sakendra Yadav
13.Jitendra Kumar
14.Om Prakash Gupta
15.Vinod Singh
16.Ranjit Kumar Singh
17.Surendra Yadav
18.Anil Kumar Singh Yadav
19.Vikash Kumar
20.Md. Raza Kadri
21.Niranjan Kumar Yadav
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
6
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamu, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamu ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6241 of 2023
1. Sudama Prasad Rajak
2. Nilam Kumari
3. Kausar Ali
4. Soni Devi
5. Dharmendra Kumar
6. Dinesh Ram
7. Ajay Ram
8. Mukesh Thakur
9. Sanjay Kumar
10.Mangal Yadav
11.Sushila Kumari
12.Ramjit Ram
13.Sudeshwar Kumar
14.Ajeet Kumar
15.Sachin Kumar Pandey
16.Umesh Ram
17.Upendra Kumar
18.Binod Kumar Singh
19.Amarik Yadav
20.Rina Kumari ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamu, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamu ... ... Respondents
7
With
W.P. (S) No. 6247 of 2023
1. Santosh Kumar Pathak
2. Rajkishore Kumar
3. Bhola Prasad Gupta
4. Santosh Kumar
5. Rajkumar Yadav
6. Rakesh Kumar Yadav
7. Ashok Kumar Yadav
8. Binay Kumar Yadav
9. Birbal Prasad
10.Vijay Kumar Yadav
11.Dil Mohammad Ansari
12.Mohammad Allauddin Ansari
13.Bajrangi Prasad Gupta
14.Ranjit Kumar
15.Savita Kumari
16.Anil Ram
17.Manoj Kumar Yadav
18.Vishwanath Yadav
19.Kamta Prasad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6293 of 2023
1. Sanjeet Kumar
2. Mithlesh Kumar
3. Samsad Alam
4. Surajmal Kumar Gupta @ Suryamal Kumar Gupta
5. Nagendra Kumar Yadav
6. Birendra Kumar Sharma
8
7. Vikash Prasad Gupta
8. Manoj Rajak
9. Shambhu Yadav
10.Parmeshwar Ram
11.Kuldip Kumar Yadav
12.Prema Kumari
13.Anupa Kumari
14.Suresh Yadav
15.Rambilash Yadav
16.Manoj Yadav
17.Ravindra Singh
18.Krishna Prasad
19.Md. Juned Alam
20.Ganga Singh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District- Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6308 of 2023
1. Nikhil Ranjan
2. Awdhesh Kumar
3. Vibha Devi
4. Saryu Prasad
5. Ravindra Kumar Yadav
6. Premlata Kumari
7. Durga Kumari
8. Arunjay Kumar Singh
9. Sarita Kumari
10.Arbind Kumar Das
11.Ranjeet Kumar Gupta
12.Mithilesh Kumar Yadav
13.Dharmendra Kumar Patel
14.Vijay Kumar Mehta
9
15.Pravesh Ram
16.Manoj Kumar Gupta
17.Manoj Kumar
18.Puspa Kumari
19.Dimpal Kumari
20.Shiwdhyan Singh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District - Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6358 of 2023
1. Vijay Kumar Gupta
2. Birendra Prasad
3. Amod Kumar Sharma
4. Chandan Vishwakarma
5. Bandana Kumari
6. Anjani Kumari
7. Gulam Shahid Ansari
8. Ramanand Mishra
9. Manoranjan Kumar Singh
10.Rampravesh Yadav
11.Ramashish Yadav
12.Umesh Yadav
13.Punam Kumari
14.Mahendra Kumar Yadav
15.Shyamdeo Kumar
16.Dinesh Ram
17.Sarita Kumari
18.Ramashish Ram
19.Mahesh Prasad
20.Awdhesh Kumar Yadav
21.Yamuna Prajapti
22.Raj Kumar Yadav ... ... Petitioners
10
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Chattarpur, District- Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6402 of 2023
1. Munna Oraon
2. Dilip Kumar Singh
3. Rajbali Singh
4. Gita Kumari
5. Kumar Bhagwan Singh
6. Mahendra Kumar Yadav
7. Niranjan Kumar Pathak
8. Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav
9. Niranjan Kumar
10.Shashilata Devi
11.Mobin Ansari
12.Akhtar Ansari
13.Kalam Ansari
14.Rabina Khatun
15.Wasim Akram
16.Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
17.Brijbhushan Prasad
18.Kumari Saroj Sashi
19.Madan Kumar
20.Sakim Ansari
21.Ram Awtar Ram ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
11
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamu, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District- Palamu ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6568 of 2023
1. Chandan Prasad Gupta
2. Surendra Kumar Paswan
3. Basant Kumar
4. Brinda Ram
5. Arjun Uranv
6. Dilip Kumar Gupta
7. Sukhlal Ram
8. Sarita Devi
9. Awadh Bihari Yadav
10.Birendra Kumar Yadav
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamu Division, District- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Palamu Division,
District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
9. The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. The Deputy Commissioner cum President, Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand
11. The District Education Officer-cum-Program Officer, Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
12
12. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Additional District
Program Officer, Palamu, Jharkhand.
13. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener,
Chhattarpur Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
14. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener, Naudiha
Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6707 of 2023
1. Geeta Kumari
2. Nagendra Kumar Ram
3. Ashish Kumar Jayswal
4. Biswanath Ram
5. Dil Mohammad
6. Shambhu Kumar Yadav
7. Sanjay Ram
8. Vikash Kumar
9. Bishmnarayan Singh
10.Ruchi Devi
11.Surendra Goswami
12.Pradeep Kumar
13.Manoj Kumar Gupta
14.Punit Kumar Singh
15.Lilawati Kumari
16.Ravindra Kumar
17.Santosh Kumar Das
18.Ramashish Ram
19.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey
20.Jitendra Prasad Gupta
21.Pramod Kumar
22.Mrityu Bijay Singh
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
13
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamu, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District- Palamu ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6763 of 2023
1. Pankaj Kumar
2. Rameshwar Singh Yadav
3. Parmanand Mishra
4. Jitendra Kumar Yadav
5. Rambadan Singh
6. Kamata Prasad Singh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamu Division, District- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Palamu Division,
District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
9. The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. The Deputy Commissioner cum President, Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand
11. The District Education Officer-cum-Program Officer, Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand.
12. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Additional District
Program Officer, Palamu, Jharkhand.
13. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener,
Chhattarpur Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
14. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener, Naudiha
Block, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6764 of 2023
1. Sushma Kumari
2. Sangita Gupta
3. Yogendra Prasad Saw
14
4. Saryu Thakur
5. Usha Kumari
6. Anuj Kumar
7. Awadh Kishor Singh
8. Trilok Kumar Singh
9. Bhim Singh
10.Pintu Kumar
11.Nandu Ram
12.Umesh Baitha
13.Arun Kumar
14.Naresh Saw
15.Tarun Kumar Yadav
16.Shivnath Vishwakarma
17.Pradip Singh
18.Sandhya Kumari
19.Sunita Pushpdha
20.Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
21.Pramod Kumar
22.Dinesh Kumar ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, Sarva Sikhsha
Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District - Ranchi.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer,
Samagra Siksha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Education Superintendent-cum-Additional District
Programme Officer, Samagra Sikhsha, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Education Officer, Hussainabad, Palamu, District -
Palamau, Jharkhand
9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum- Coordinator,
Nawdiha Bazar, District - Palamau ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 7058 of 2023
1. Aklesh Ram
2. Baidyanath Prasad
3. Rakesh Kumar
4. Shambhu Kumar
5. Jitendra Prasad Yadav
6. Jagdish Ram
7. Lalita Kumari
8. Sanjay Kumar Singh
15
9. Sosan Kachchap
10.Prem Shankar Kumar Sharma
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education
Project Council, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, District-
Palamau, Jharkhand.
8. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Palamau Division,
District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
9. The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. The Deputy Commissioner cum President, Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Palamu, Jharkhand
11. The District Education Officer-cum-Program Officer, Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamau, Jharkhand.
12. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Additional District
Program Officer, Palamau, Jharkhand.
13. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener,
Chhattarpur Block, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
14. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-convener, Naudiha
Block, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate : Ms. Tejaswita Safalta, Advocate [in W.P.(S) Nos. 6021, 6193, 6198, 6239, 6241, 6247, 6293, 6308, 6358, 6402, 6707 & 6764 of 2023] : Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate : Ms. Shristi Das, Advocate [ in W.P.(S) No. 6083 of 2023] : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023] : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate 16 : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Anand (No.2), Advocate [ in W.P.(S) Nos. 6568, 6763 & 7058 of 2023] For the Resp.- JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG : Ms. Apoorva Singh, AC to Sr. SC-III : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV : Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, AC to SC-V : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, AC to Sr. SC-II
---
C.A.V. On 15th May 2024 Pronounced on 01st July 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The batch of cases involve almost common issues and the arguments were advanced from the records of W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 and W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 and reference was also made to the records of W.P.(S) No. 6763 of 2023 where a legible copy of the advertisement dated 24th September 2005 (Annexure-1) has been annexed relating to 67 schools in the district of Palamau. It also contains the letter dated 20th September 2023 (Annexure-9) issued by the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand to the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, District- Palamau, Jharkhand and other documents which are relevant for all the cases.
3. The dispute is relating to two blocks of the District of Palamau, they are, Naudiha Bazaar (210 teachers) and Chhatarpur (302 teachers) in total 512 teachers, all appointed in the year 2006 to 2008 pursuant to different advertisements. However, in the present batch of writ petitions there are only 348 petitioners and therefore this judgment will be confined to the writ petitioners involved in these cases.
4. Since the arguments have been advanced from the aforesaid three writ records, the prayers made therein are quoted as under:-
W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. For issuing a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the letters dated 13.10.2023, 14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023 (Annexure-11 to 13) whereby and whereunder the respondent State authorities have illegally, unlawfully and without issuing the charge memo and without following the prescribed procedure in the Jharkhand Assistant Teachers Service Condition, Rules 2021, have illegally and with a pre-meditated mindset taken a blanket/en-masse decision to punish 210 Assistant Teachers working in Nawdiha Bazaar Block 17 of Palamau District, including the present petitioners by ordering not to take any work from them and to further stop the payment of their salary which power they cannot exercise unless the services of the petitioners are finally terminated/ended up with after due compliance of the provisions of the prescribed Rules as contained in the Rules of 2021.
ii. For showing cause the respondents particularly respondent no. 5, 7 & 9 as to why, under what circumstances and under which provisions of law they can take a decision to not to take work from the petitioners and for stoppage of their salary merely on the basis of some enquiry/enquiries, if any, conducted behind the back of the petitioners after about 15 long years of service spent by the petitioners satisfactorily, particularly when the petitioners have not been served with any charge memo and no opportunity of hearing has ever been provided to them and admittedly even as per the impugned letters the matter appears to have been simply referred to the concerned Disciplinary-cum- Administrative Authority for making enquiry into the matters of appointment of the petitioners which obviously the petitioners claim to be made absolutely in accordance with law, as per established norms and by the competent appointing authority which the petitioners have narrated in detail in the body of the writ petition AND/OR During the pendency of the writ petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation & execution of the letters dated 13.10.2023, 14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023 (Annexure-11 to 13), so far the petitioners are concerned AND/OR the respondents may be directed to pay the current salary/honorarium to the petitioners subject to result of the writ petition.
AND/OR The petitioners pray for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), Direction(s) for which the petitioner is found legally entitled to and also for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners."
W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. For quashing of the letter no. 1345 dated 14.10.2023 (Annexure- 11) issued by Respondent no. 12 in compliance of letter no. VS/178/26/2020/3941 dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure-10) whereby and whereunder it has been directed not to take work from the petitioners till any decision with regard to status of the petitioner is taken by the authority-cum- disciplinary authority as the same has been passed in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and further because the same is contrary to the decision taken in State Level Meeting.
ii. For quashing of the letter no. VS/178/26/2020/3941 dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure-10) issued by respondent no. 6 whereby direction has been issued not to take work from the petitioners on the basis of decision taken in 64th State Level Meeting of Jharkhand Education Project Council which is based on an enquiry made behind the backs of the petitioners that too without affording any opportunity and further there is no such decision taken in the aforesaid meeting as would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting at agenda no. 3 (Annexure- 8).
iii. For a direction upon the respondents not to disturb the petitioners and allow them to work in their respective school where they have been posted and discharging their duties from more than 15 years.
iv. For further direction upon the respondents to extend all the benefits stipulated/provided in Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Condition Rules 2021 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2021 for sake of convenience) to the petitioners for which they fulfil all the criteria but the benefits are not extended to them without any rhyme and reason."18
W.P.(S) No. 6763 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. For quashing of the letter no. 1345 dated 14.10.2023 (Annexure- 11) issued by Respondent no. 12 in compliance of letter no. VS/178/26/2020/3941 dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure- 10) whereby and whereunder it has been directed not to take work from the petitioners till any decision with regard to status of the petitioner is taken by the authority- cum- disciplinary authority as the same has been passed in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and further because the same is contrary to the decision taken in State Level Meeting of J.E.P.C. ii. For quashing of the dated letter no. VS/178/26/2020/3941 dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure-10) issued by respondent no. 6 whereby direction has been issued not to take work from the petitioners on the basis of decision taken in 64th State Level Meeting of Jharkhand Education Project Council which is based on an enquiry made behind the backs of the petitioners that too without affording any opportunity and further there is no such decision taken in the aforesaid meeting as would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting at agenda no. 3 (Annexure-8).
iii. For a direction upon the respondents not to disturb the petitioners and allow them to work in their respective school where they have been posted and discharging their duties from more than 15 years. iv. For further direction upon the respondents to extend all the benefits stipulated/provided in Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Condition Rules 2021 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2021 for sake of convenience) to the petitioners for which they fulfil all the criteria but the benefits are not extended to them without any rhyme and reason."
5. So far as the other writ petitions are concerned, similar prayers have been made and the following chart will reveal the orders/communications/letters which are under challenge in each case including the aforesaid cases: -
Case number Block Impugned orders/letters
involved
W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6083 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar, Letters dated 13.10.2023 &
Chhattarpur 14.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6183 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar, Letters dated 13.10.2023 &
Chhattarpur 14.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6193 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6198 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar, Letters dated 13.10.2023,
19
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6239 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6241 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6247 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6293 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6308 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6358 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6402 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6568 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar, Letters dated 13.10.2023 &
Chhattarpur 14.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6707 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 17.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6763 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023 &
14.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 6764 of 2023 Naudiha Bazar Letters dated 13.10.2023,
14.10.2023 & 16.10.2023
W.P. (S) No. 7058 of 2023 Chhattarpur Letters dated 13.10.2023 &
14.10.2023
6. Arguments of the petitioners.
A. In the batch of these writ petitions, some of the petitioners are teachers of class 1 to 5 and some of them are of class 6 to 8 in different schools in the district of Palamau. All the petitioners are aggrieved by letter no. 3941 dated 13.10.2023 issued by the State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council whereby a direction has been issued not to take work from aforesaid 512 Assistant Teachers on the basis of communication dated 20.09.2023 issued by the Principal Secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of 20 Jharkhand and as a consequence of 64th Meeting of State Committee dated 10.07.2023. In the said communication, it has also been directed that all the Assistant Teachers would be paid salary till 13.10.2023. B. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the follow-up communication contained in letter no. 1345 dated 14.10.2023 [Annexure-12 to W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023] issued to the Area Education Officer, Hussainabad as well as to the Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator of Chhatarpur and Naudiha Bazar blocks within the district of Palamau. They are further aggrieved by letter no. 241 dated 16.10.2023 and letter no. 273 dated 17.10.2023 which are the letters issued to the principal of the concerned schools asking them to stop taking work from 210 para teachers relating to Naudiha Bazar block and 302 para teachers relating to Chhatarpur block respectively; in total 512 para teachers. C. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has assailed the aforesaid communications and has submitted that the petitioners have been working since 2006/2008 and they were duly appointed after advertisement. They are duly qualified and they have been working upto full satisfaction of the respondents. They were also given on-job training and they have been suddenly asked to stop the work and a direction has been issued not to release any payment to them by virtue of the aforesaid communication. Such action on the part of the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. If there was any allegation regarding the qualification or entitlement of the petitioners to continue with the work, at least a show-cause was required to be issued. D. The records of the case reveal that certain objections were being raised in connection with the appointment of para teachers in the district of Palamau right from the year 2012 and from time to time, certain enquiries were also made but at no point of time, the petitioners were noticed and all the enquiries were made at the back of the petitioners. Such action on the part of the respondents is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the interest of the students who are studying in the schools, inasmuch as, now the petitioners have been restrained from teaching in the schools.
21E. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "V.P. Gidroniya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another"
reported in (1970) 1 SCC 362 various categories of suspension have been discussed therein and it is certainly open to the employer not to take work but the same will not disentitle the employees to receive the salary. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. The said judgment has also been followed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the judgment in the case of "Radha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar" reported in (2002) SCC OnLine Patna 746. The learned Senior counsel has referred to the facts of the said case to submit that even in case of fraudulent appointment, the alleged fraud is required to be proved by making due enquiry.
F. Prima facie, there is no case of fraud on the part of the petitioners and the petitioners are in possession of all the requisite qualifications. If the respondent- authorities, at one level or the other have not processed/approved the selection of the petitioners then at best the same could be said to be suffering from certain irregularity, but such non action on the part of the respondents will not nullify the appointment of the petitioners, who have been duly appointed after passing through the democratic method of participation in the Aam Sabha of the villages. G. Pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order, the administrative-cum- disciplinary authority who is the authority under the Rules governing the petitioners framed in the year 2021 i.e. Sahayak Adhyapak Seva Sart Rule, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Rules of 2021'), has also given a report in connection with some of the petitioners involved in the batch of the cases whereby the said authority has given post-facto approval regarding their appointment.
7. Arguments of respondent Jharkhand Education Project Council ( in short, JEPC ) i. The present cases are in two parts. Some of the para teachers are relating to Class -1 to 5 and the other group of para teachers is relating to Class 6 to 8. So far as Class 1 to 5 is concerned, the necessary enquiry has been done and an order has been passed against which the respondents have 22 preferred statutory appeal in terms of the Service Rules of 2021. So far as the matter relating to para teachers of Class 6 to Class 8 is concerned, the concerned authority is of a higher level and the authorities who are busy in Lok Sabha election. The moment the election is over, they are likely to take decision shortly.
ii. The impugned orders have been passed as a follow-up action to the objection raised by audit wherein it was found that there are irregularities in connection with the appointment of the para teachers and since the legality of the appointment of the petitioners has been questioned by audit, therefore, the payment is also under cloud. There is an objection raised by the audit regarding payment to the para teachers. iii. The audit objection made by the Accountant General Office which has been annexed as Annexure- R/1 to the counter affidavit in W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 is neither under challenge nor the contents of audit objection has been sought to be disputed by the petitioners in any manner.
iv. While referring to the governing by-laws of JEPC [Annexure-R/3 to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No.6021 of 2023] the learned counsel has referred to Clause 47 thereof i.e. 'Duties and powers of the State Project Director' and has particularly referred to Clause (Gha) thereof to submit that the director is the administrative and financial head of the entire hierarchy of JEPC and is therefore, duty bound to ensure financial as well as administrative discipline in the organization. v. JEPC is an intermediary and is functioning on the basis of the funds received from Central as well as State Government on 60:40 ratio. Neither the basic document i.e. the audit objection is under challenge nor the report on the basis of which the impugned orders, which are consequential orders, has been challenged in the present writ petitions. When the very basis of the order is not under challenge, the consequential orders cannot be set-aside.
vi. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Edukanti Kistamma Vs. S. Venkatareddy" reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756 (paragraph 22) which has been followed by this Court in LPA No. 23 600 of 2017, in the similar circumstances, when there was a restrain order passed by the Union of India regarding making payment, the said order having not been challenged, no consequential relief was allowed in favour of the contractor who had urged that he had only entered into a contract with the JEPC and had no privity of contract with the Union of India or the State Government.
vii. The appointment of para teachers is purely on contractual basis and therefore, the dispute is a contractual dispute and not a service dispute and therefore, the principles of service jurisprudence will not apply to contractual dispute. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Chembur Service Station" reported in (2011) 3 SCC 710 (paragraph 26). In case of dispute arising out of contract, the parties are governed by contract and the general principles of administrative law is also not applicable.
viii. The private interest of the petitioners has to give way to the larger public interest as the students deserve the best quality of education. The learned counsel referred to the various judgments annexed along with the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023. He has in particular referred to the findings of Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of "Anand Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India" reported in 2015 SCC OnLine All 3997 (paragraph 96 and 105) which has been quoted at page no. 136 of the counter affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that the findings of the Hon'ble Full Bench has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment.
ix. In the judgment in the case of "State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty"
reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 (paragraph 36 to 40), it has been held that the lack of eligibility in the matter of appointment is an incurable defect.
x. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 306 of 2014 (Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand) decided on 22 nd July 2015 and it is submitted that in absence of approval by the Block Education Committee who was appropriate authority at the time of 24 appointment of the petitioners way back in the year 2006 to 2009 and continues to be the appropriate authority under the provisions of Service Rules of 2021, the petitioners cannot claim continuity in service. No right ever crystalized in favour of the petitioners.
8. Rejoinder Arguments of the petitioners.
I. In rejoinder, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 has submitted that the reports which have been referred in the audit report are in favour of the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023. He has brought the report on record by filing a supplementary affidavit, a reference of which has been made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023. He submits that twice the enquiry was made; once in the year 2012 and thereafter, in the year 2019, and the records of all the petitioners was found in order in 2012 enquiry and the records of all the petitioners except Ramnath Ram has been found to be in order in the latter report. So far as Ramnath Ram is concerned, the learned counsel submits that he tried to figure out his name in the long list but he could not locate his name. The learned counsel submits that accordingly there was no occasion for the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 to challenge the audit report.
II. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in other cases has submitted that the arguments of the respondents that the audit report of the Accountant General office was required to be challenged is fallacious. There is no question of challenging any audit report and audit reports are never challenged. The report remains as it is. The question of challenge would come only when an adverse order is passed against the petitioners.
Findings of this Court.
9. W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 has tried to submit that the legality of appointment of the petitioners of the said case was duly scrutinized twice earlier, once in the year 2012 and thereafter in the year 2019 and therefore, there was no occasion to check impugned action and issue 25 impugned letters as against the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023. This Court is not inclined to allow the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 on the aforesaid premise in view of the fact that the enquiry in the present case is arising as a consequence of 64th meeting of State Executive Committee of JEPC which is dated 10th July 2023 and it is not clear from the records of this case as to the name and details of the persons with respect to whom the impugned action has been taken although the total number is 512. As per the Service Rules of 2021, the respondent- JEPC has a right to verify the legality and validity of appointment particularly with regard to qualification/training certificates of the appointees in terms of Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021. However, no such material has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the qualification/training certificates of these petitioners were ever verified by the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioners that in spite of verification of qualification/training certificates, the petitioners were treated differently from those of 543 teachers mentioned in minutes of 64 th meeting of State Executive Committee where those teachers whose qualification/training certificates were already verified were allowed to continue to work but were to be paid after approval of the appointment by the competitive authority in terms of the Service Rules of 2021. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to treat W.P.(S) No. 6183 of 2023 differently.
10. Background of the case.
A. The selection process involved in this batch of cases was under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (hereinafter referred to as SSA) which is a project jointly run by the Government of India and the State of Jharkhand with proportionate share of funding in the ratio of 60:40 respectively and the fund for payment of honorarium to the teachers is also provided by the aforesaid two source of money. The idea was to attain Universal Elementary Education covering the entire country in a mission mode through active participation of community. With the enactment of 86 th Constitutional Amendment "free and compulsory quality education upto elementary level" has become a fundamental right and thus, making it mandatory for the central and state governments to provide for such education to each and every child.
26B. Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC) is constituted under SSA which is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. The hierarchy at district consists of District Level Implementation Authority, the Block Level Structure and then the Village/Ward Education Committees. At the State Level, there is a general council to be headed by the Chief Minister/Education Minister and there is also an Executive Committee headed by the Chief Secretary/Development Commissioner/Education Secretary and then the State Project Office is headed by Mission Director/State Project Director assisted by coordinators looking after the various components of SSA. It was held by this Court in LPA No.10 of 2021 that the general council being headed by the Chief Minister and the executive committee headed by the Chief Secretary or Development Commissioner or Education Secretary itself suggested that there was no evasive control of the State Government save and except the monitoring part so that the scheme be implemented without any interruption and the fund be allocated smoothly by the Central Government depending upon its expenditure in proper manner. It was also held that the authority to appoint para teacher is also vested upon the State Project Office who has got ultimate control upon the decision which is to be taken by the Block Education Extension Officer at the block level or the District Programme Officer at the district level and since there is no post like the District Programme Officer, hence the District Superintendent of Education of the concerned district is to exercise ex officio duty of the District Programme Officer under SSA.
C. The teachers under SSA are appointed through advertisement followed by a selection process and then by entering into an agreement of contractual employment initially for a period of one year after due approval of appointment by the competent authority and upon scrutiny/verification of the documents relating to educational /training qualifications. The contract of employment is subject to renewal and remuneration is paid in the shape of monthly honorarium. Thus, the employment is contractual in nature.
27D. Since at the State Level, SSA is monitored by a high-powered general council and there is also a high-powered Executive Committee they certainly have the power to scrutinize the appointments of teachers made under SSA particularly when there is an allegation of illegal/irregular appointments. Further the State Project Office headed by Mission Director/State Project Director is also empowered to issue various directions from time to time to ensure smooth implementation of SSA to achieve its objectives and certainly has the power to scrutinize the appointments of teachers made under SSA.
E. Upon going through the scheme of SSA as stated above and enumerated in the judgment passed in LPA No. 10 of 2021 (Supra), it is apparent that the decision with regard to scrutiny of the appointments of para teachers who were appointed way back in the year 2006-08 was taken by the executive committee of SSA headed by the Chief Secretary in its 64 th meeting, which was followed by the impugned letters issued by the Project Director, JEPC and subordinate authorities under SSA. F. Much after the appointment of the petitioners and while the petitioners were still working as claimed by them, Service Rules of 2021 were framed and it is not in dispute that the petitioners are governed by Service Rules of 2021.
Terms of Advertisement and eligibility criteria
11. The terms of the advertisement for upgraded middle schools and middle schools dated 24th September 2005 as mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6763 of 2023 reflects that the minimum qualification was B.Sc. and certain relaxation was also given to those female teachers who were earlier directed to stop working from 01.09.2005. The entire step wise process of selection was also mentioned. It was categorically mentioned that the required agreement pursuant to the selection process will be entered after the selection was approved by the District Education Committee. A reference was also made to letter no. JEPC/470 dated 08.06.2005 with regards to the eligibility criteria but a copy of the same has not been produced before this Court.
2812. Another advertisement has been placed in the records of W.P.(S) No.6021 of 2023 at page no.14 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners which reflects that on account of the fact that in number of schools the required approval was not granted on account of failure to meet the eligibility criteria, fresh advertisement was issued in relation to some schools. This advertisement reflects that the minimum qualification for induction in middle school (higher primary class - 6 to 8) was B.Sc. and in case of non- availability of such candidate, persons having intermediate with Science coupled with graduation or post-graduation could be inducted. The minimum qualification for induction in primary school (Class- 1 to 5) was intermediate.
13. Numerous illegible copies of advertisements have been placed on record through supplementary affidavit in the records of W.P.(S) No.6021 of 2023 filed on 02.11.2023 however, it is apparent that there has been slight variation in the terms and conditions of advertisement particularly with regard to the minimum qualification and the preference to be given to one or the other candidate depending upon their qualification. This Court is of the considered view that there can be no doubt that the required qualification of teachers has to be governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the concerned advertisement and accordingly the scrutiny of their appointment has to be seen in the light of the concerned advertisement. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to give any clear finding with regards to the required qualification of the teachers involved in these cases who were admittedly inducted through different advertisements.
selection process
14. From the records of this case, it is clear that the procedure for selection was prescribed in the circular/advertisement and in all the cases, the recruitment was to be made in a democratic manner under the supervision of the prescribed authority and the name of the selected candidate was required to be sent to the competent authority for approval and upon approval of selection, an agreement was to be entered into indicating the initial period of contract as one year. It is not clear from the records as to whether the appointment of one or the other teachers was approved by the competent authority and when was the approval granted. It is also not clear from the records as to whether the 29 initial period of contract as per the agreement was ever extended from time to time by any order/execution of a formal document. However, at the same time, it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have continued to work from their selection in the year 2006-08 till the issuance of the impugned letters and in the meantime vide notification dated 14.02.2022 Service Rules of 2021 have come into force to govern the existing para-teachers.
15. There are two categories of para-teachers/assistant teachers involved in these cases all working since 2006-08, some are primary level school teachers (class 1 to 5) and others are higher primary level school teachers (class-6 to 8). As of now all of them are governed by the Service Rules of 2021. As per the service rules, the administrative-cum-disciplinary authority of primary level school teachers (class 1 to 5) are the concerned Village Level Education Committee and, the administrative-cum-disciplinary authority of the higher primary level school teachers (class-6 to 8) are the Block Level Education Committee.
16. Vide letter dated 13.10.2023 issued by the State Project Director, JEPC and all follow-up letters dated 14.10.2023, 16.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 the respondents have stopped taking work and making payment to 512 para teachers /assistant teachers [hereinafter referred to as teachers] of the two blocks namely Naudiha Bazar and Chhatarpur, both in the district of Palamau till decision is taken by the concerned administrative-cum-disciplinary authority regarding legality and validity of their appointment and verification of qualification/training certificates. Such impugned action has been taken as a follow-up of the decision taken in the 64th meeting of the State Executive Committee dated 10th July 2023.
17. Admittedly, the petitioners are neither suspended nor terminated and they have been asked to stop working without further payment subject to scrutiny of their appointment both in terms of requisite qualification and approval of appointment.
18. The records reveal that right from the year 2012 there were allegations regarding illegal/irregular appointments in the schools of the aforesaid two blocks, namely, Naudiha Bazar and Chhatarpur, both in the district of Palamau pursuant to advertisement(s) in the year 2006 to 2008. Vide order dated 30 18.01.2012 a committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations and report. Thereafter while following up the report, various discrepancies were found and fresh verification was done at the district level but two reports were at variance with each other. Under such circumstances, a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau who submitted a report that there were 251 teachers in Chhatarpur and 184 teachers in Naudiha Bazar, total 435 teachers, who did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of appointment and an action was to be taken to terminate the services of such teachers. However, at the instance of a member of Vidhan Sabha, a recommendation was made to get the matter enquired into by a high-level committee. Consequently, under the direction of special committee of Vidhan Savha, the School Education and Literacy department of the State of Jharkhand constituted a high level three-member committee vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and a report dated 21.12.2022 was submitted. The report dated 21.12.2022 was placed before the 64th committee meeting of State Executive Committee of Jharkhand Education Project Council headed by Chief Secretary cum chairman of State Executive Committee (hereinafter referred to as '64th committee meeting') which has been placed before this Court. All the impugned actions/orders/ letters are sequel to the deliberations of aforesaid 64th committee meeting.
19. The summary of the report dated 21.12.2022 as recorded in the aforesaid 64th committee meeting is as follows: -
..........................................................
mDr lfefr dk tk¡p izfrosnu Jh tVk'kadj pkS/kjh] vk;qDr iykew ize.My] esfnuhuxj ds i=kad 1849 fnukad 21-12-2022 }kjk izkIr gqvk gSA tk¡p lfefr us iz[k.M NÙkjiqj ,oa ukSMhgk cktkj esa p;fur ikjk f'k{kdksa dk fu/kkZfjr ekud] foKkiu] vkelHkk dh dk;kZokgh] iz[k.M f'k{kk lfefr ls vuqeksfnr dk;Zjr ikjk f'k{kdksa ,oa ekuns; Hkqxrku ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dk lfefr }kjk xgu leh{kk dh ,oa tkWp izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k%& 31 Nrjiqj 320 302 ukSMhgk cktkj 223 210 543 512 rRdkyhu inLFkkfir iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkfj;ksa us vius nkf;Ro dk fuoZg.k lgh rjhds ls ugha fd;kA vr% muds fo:) foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA ukekadu ,oa dk;Zjr f'k{kd ds vk/kkj ij ftys esa f'k{kdksa dh deh dks bafxr fd;k gSA Jh tVk'kadj pkS/kjh] vk;qDr iykew ize.My] esfnuhuxj dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr ds mijksDr izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij dqy 512 ikjk f'k{kdksa dk p;u@vuqeksnu fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ds vk/kkj ij ugha gS] rr~~le; 'kS{kf.kd vgrkZ/kkjh ,oa xzke"f'k{kk lfefr ds p;u ds vk/kkj ij vgrkZ/kkjh ikjk f'k{kdksa dk iqu% fuEuor~~ vk/kkj ij fo'ys"k.k fd;k x;k gS%& 1- 4- mijksDr vk/kkj ij Nrjiqj ,oa ukSMhgk cktkj ds rr~~le; 'kS{kf.kd vgrkZ/kkjh ,oa xzke f'k{kk lfefr ds p;u ds vk/kkj ij vgrkZ/kkjh ikjk f'k{kdksa dh la[;k fuEuor~~ izkIr gqbZ%& fooj.kh tkWp lfefr ¼vk;qDr iykew Rkr~~le; p;u izfØ;k iw.kZ ize.My) ds izfrosnu ds ugha] ijUrq fu/kkZfjr vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ekin.M 'kS{kf.kd vgrkZ Fkh ds vuqlkj p;u ugha Nrjiqj ukSMhgk dqy Nrjiqj ukSMhgk dqy cktkj cktkj ftyk dk;ZØe dk;kZy; 27 25 52 6 16 22 }kjk ftyk Lrj ls vuqeksnu Ikkjk f'k{kd ftudk p;u 16 21 37 0 0 0 xzke f'k{kk lfefr ls Li"V ugha gSA ikjk f'k{kd ftudk 161 68 229 60 31 91 iz[k.M f'k{kk lfefr ls vuqeksnu ugha ikjk f'k{kd }kjk iz[k.M 85 96 181 0 0 0 f'k{kk lfefr ls vuqeksnu tks fooj.kh tek dh xbZ gS] og miyC/k vuqeksnu lwph ls esy ugha [kkrh gSA ikjk f'k{kd ftudk xzke 13 0 13 0 0 0 f'k{kk lfefr ds p;u ls igys iz[k.M f'k{kk lfefr ls vuqeksfnr gSA dqy 302 210 512 66 47 113 32 ukSMhgk cktkj ,oa Nrjiqj iz[k.M esa voS/k p;u ekeys ls lacaf/kr lgk;d v/;kidksa ¼ikjk f'k{kdksa½ dks izfr ekg ns; ekuns; jkf'k :- 64]33]500@& ¼pkSlB yk[k rSarhl gtkj ikWp lkS :Ik;s ek=½ ,oa okf"kZd 7]72]02]000@& ¼lkr djksM+] cgRrj yk[k] nks gtkj :Ik;s ek=½ gSA ukSMhgk cktkj ,oa Nrjiqj iz[k.M esa voS/k p;u ekeys ls lacaf/kr lgk;d v/;kidksa ds ekeys esa fuEuor~~ izLrko gS%& Special Case mi;qZDr izLrkoksa ij jkT; dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr dh Lohd`fr izkfFkZr gSA "
20. The contents of the aforesaid 64th committee meeting reveal that altogether recruitment of 1055 (543+512) teachers were scrutinized in the aforesaid two blocks; recruitment of 543 teachers were found to be in order; recruitment of 512 teachers (302 in Chhatarpur Block and 210 in Naudiha Bazar Block) was found to be against the prescribed parameters/norms of selection. With regards to aforesaid 512 teachers, it was observed that the then Block Education Extension Officers had not performed their work properly and accordingly recommendations were made to initiate departmental proceeding against concerned Block Education Extension Officers. The following were the proposed action with regards to the teachers -
(a) 543 para teachers who were selected as per prescribed norms and procedure were to be permitted to continue to work but be paid after approval of the concerned administrative-cum-disciplinary authority in terms of the Service Rules of 2021.
(b) Recruitment of 113 teachers was alleged to be procedurally irregular by stating that their selection process was not complete and were to be treated as special case and their services were to be 33 continued after approval of the concerned administrative-cum- disciplinary authority in terms of Service Rules of 2021.
(c) Recruitment of remaining 399 teachers was alleged to be illegal as neither they had the requisite qualifications nor their selection process was complete and accordingly, they were proposed to be terminated.
21. Service Rules of 2021 were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand vide notification dated 14.02.2022, wherein it has been prescribed that the para teachers who were working under SSA would now be known as assistant teachers and will be governed by the Service Rules of 2021. 'Para teachers' have been defined under section 3(v) to be those teachers who have been appointed by Village Education Committee under SSA on contractual basis on honorarium and 'Assistant Teacher' has been defined under Rule 3(vi) to be those teachers who are found working under SSA. The salient features of Service Rules of 2021 which are relevant for the purposes of the present case are: -
(a) The primary education has been defined as relating to Class 1 to 5, higher primary class has been defined as relating to class 6 to 8 and elementary class has been defined to be relating to Class 1 to class
8. "Village Education Committee" renamed as "School Managing Committee" is a committee for proper functioning of the school under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
(b) "Block Education Committee" has been defined to be a committee constituted under the chairmanship of Block Development Officer for the purposes of SSA.
(c) The Rule 4 prescribes the required qualification. With respect to higher primary teachers for Class 6 to 8 the required qualification is graduation level and for the primary level teachers teaching class 1 to 5 the required qualification is intermediate level.
(d) With respect to training, a specific reference has been made to National Council for Teachers Education and to other prescribed institutes and the training has been defined to be training received from recognized institute.
34(e) The contract has also been defined to be the contract which the Village Education Committee has entered with the para teachers [now assistant teachers]. The services of para teachers/assistant teachers are their services taken under such contract.
(f) The Service Rules of 2021 provides for administrative-cum- disciplinary authority for assistant teachers. The primary level teachers would be in the cadre of Panchayat level and higher primary level teachers would be teachers in the cadre of block level. For the teachers who are at primary level, the administrative- cum-disciplinary authority is at panchayat level and for the teachers who are at higher primary level, the administrative-cum- disciplinary authority is at block level. There is also a provision for appeal in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. The orders passed by the panchayat/block administrative-cum-disciplinary authority are appealable before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and the second appeal lies before the State Project Director, JEPC.
(g) Rule 7(iv) of the aforesaid Rules provides that any increase in honorarium would be available only considering the educational qualification and passing the Teachers' Eligibility Test and in case any educational/training certificate is found to be illegal upon verification, then the honorarium paid would be recoverable apart from other legal actions. It has also been provided that those teachers whose educational qualification/training certificates have already been verified, there will be no fresh verification for such teachers.
(h) Under Rule 12 there is a provision with regard to verification of the educational certificates/training of the para teachers to be designated as assistant teachers which is required to be considered in details.
22. Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 prescribes the obligation of the para teachers to offer their qualification/training certificates for verification with deposit of requisite fees for verification. Rule 12 of Service Rules of 2021 is quoted as under: -
35"12. प्रमाण पत्रों की वैद्यता की जाोंच :- उपरोक्त वर्णित स्नातक कोर्ि (वर्ि 6 से 8 हेतु) एवं इं िरमीर्िएि कोर्ि (वर्ि 1 से 5) के सहायक अध्यापक सम्प्रर्त पारा र्िक्षकों के िैक्षर्णक /प्रिैक्षर्णक तथा र्िक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा उत्तीणिता प्रमाण पत्र अन्य प्रमाण पत्रों की जांच हेतु संबंर्ित प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा सर्मर्त एवं प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा प्रसार पदार्िकारी- सह-सदस्य सर्चव सक्षम प्रार्िकार होंर्े तथा इस प्रर्िया को सुर्िर्ित करिे की जवाबदे ही संबंर्ित र्जले के र्जला र्िक्षा अिीक्षक-सह-अपर र्जला कायििम पदार्िकारी की होर्ी। संबंर्ित पारा र्िक्षक उपरोक्त वर्णित सभी िैक्षर्णक/ प्रिैक्षर्णक/ र्िक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा उत्तीणिता प्रमाण पत्र एवं अन्य प्रमाण पत्रों की जांच हेतु अर्भप्रमार्णत प्रर्त आवश्यक िुल्क सर्हत 15 र्दिों के अंदर र्जला र्िक्षा अिीक्षक-सह-अपर र्जला कायििम पदार्िकारी को संबंर्ित प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा प्रसार पदार्िकारी के माध्यम से उपलब्ध करायेंर्े। र्जला र्िक्षा अिीक्षक सभी कार्जात प्राप्त होिे के 15 र्दिों के अंदर संबंर्ित बोिि , संस्थाि को जााँच हेतु प्रेर्ित करें र्े। प्रमाण पत्र जाली या र्लत पाए जािे की स्स्थर्त में सक्षम प्रार्िकार के सर्चव द्वारा संबंर्ित सक्षम प्रार्िकार प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा सर्मर्त में रखते हुए उसकी सहमर्त से संबंर्ित पारा र्िक्षक की संर्वदा/कायि अिुमर्त समाप्त करिे हेतु यथोर्चत कारि वाई की जायेर्ी। समय पर प्रमाण पत्र की जांच करा लेिा संबंर्ित प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा प्रसार पदार्िकारी-सह-सदस्य सर्चव, प्रखण्ड र्िक्षा सर्मर्त एवं संबंर्ित र्जले के र्जला र्िक्षा अिीक्षक-सह-अपर र्जला कायििम पदार्िकारी की सामूर्हक र्जम्मेवारी होर्ी।"
23. Under Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 the teachers were under legal obligation to deposit the attested copies of their certificates with the necessary fees within 15 days for the purposes of enabling the authorities to take steps within 15 days for verification of the certificates; it also provides that in case any certificate is found to be forged or incorrect, action would be taken to terminate the services of such teachers. Rule 7(iv) mentioned that the candidates whose certificates have already been verified, there would be no fresh verification. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners do not reveal as to whether the certificates in connection with one or the other teacher have been verified by the respondent authorities. Merely because the agreement was entered into by one or the other teacher with Village Education Committee, the same cannot be a ground to assume or presume that the required verification of certificates of the petitioners was done. There has to be positive material to 36 show that the qualification/training certificates of the petitioners were already verified. 64th committee meeting of the State Executive Committee reveals that there have been large scale irregularities in the matter of recruitment of para teachers in the two blocks involved in these cases.
24. In such circumstances, in terms of the 64th committee meeting of the State Executive Committee, the 543 para teachers who were selected as per prescribed norms and procedure were permitted to continue to work but were to be paid after the concerned administrative-cum-disciplinary authority approved their service in terms of the Service Rules of 2021; with respect to 113 teachers, there was allegation of procedural irregularity/ non-completion of selection process and they were treated to be special case and their services were to be continued after approval of the concerned administrative-cum- disciplinary authority in terms of the Service Rules of 2021 and further, with respect to 399 teachers whose services were alleged to be illegal for want of requisite qualification/ non-completion of selection process, they were proposed to be terminated.
25. Since all the petitioners have claimed that they have been stopped from working by virtue of the 64th committee meeting, it is apparent that their case do not fall amongst aforesaid 543 teachers who were permitted to continue to work rather the cases fall either amongst the case of aforesaid 113 teachers who were to be continued after approval of the concerned administrative-cum- disciplinary authority in terms of the Service Rules of 2021 or amongst the case of 399 teachers whose services were to be terminated for not having requisite qualification coupled with non-completion of selection process. The records of the case do not reflect as to whether the name of one or the other petitioner(s) fell amongst 113 candidates who were to be treated as special case or amongst 399 candidates whose services were to be terminated.
26. All the impugned letters dated 13.10.2023, 14.10.2023, 16.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 are sequel to the 64th meeting of the State Executive Committee and by the impugned letters/action all the 512 teachers [113 +399] were stopped from working and their payment was also stopped awaiting the decision of the concerned administrative-cum-disciplinary authority in terms of Service Rules of 2021. Instead of waiting for the result of the scrutiny of their 37 appointment, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the impugned action and letters and have claimed that they have the requisite qualifications for appointment. Admittedly, no show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was granted before taking the impugned action /before issuing the impugned letters. The writ petitions do not disclose the exact objection(s) with regard to candidature /selection process of one or the other petitioner but certainly all of them fall amongst the 512 teachers who were stopped from working.
27. The grievance is in two parts, order restraining to perform work and order refusing to pay wages for the period in which the petitioners are not permitted to work. Admittedly, no order of suspension or termination has been passed and the appointments have been referred for scrutiny by the competent administrative-cum-disciplinary authority under the Service Rules of 2021 governing the petitioners.
28. The first point for consideration is -
Whether the respondents are justified in restraining the petitioners from performing their duty as teachers awaiting the result of the scrutiny by the competent administrative-cum-disciplinary authority under the Service Rules of 2021 without issuing any notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners?
29. The Service Rules of 2021 has the force of law and the parties are required to act as per their mutual obligations under the Service Rules of 2021.
30. As per Rule 12 read with Rule 7(iv) of Service Rules of 2021, the para teachers appointed earlier are to be designated as assistant teachers and there has to be a proper verification of their educational /training qualification for which the petitioners were to deposit their educational /training certificates before the prescribed authority with requisite fees for verification within 15 days and upon such deposit the same was to be sent for verification within next 15 days. The overall responsibility for verification of educational and training certificates of the teachers is of District Superintendent of Education-cum- Additional District Programme Officer of the concerned district. There was no requirement for reverification of educational /training certificates for those whose educational /training certificates were already verified.
3831. Thus, the petitioners were duty bound to deposit attested copies of educational/training certificates for verification in terms of Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 but there is nothing on record to show that they had acted in terms of Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021.
32. The petitioners have asserted that they have the requisite qualification/training certificates. However, there is nothing on record as to whether the petitioners ever submitted their qualification/training certificates before the competent authority under Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 to get their qualification/training certificates duly verified. It is not their case that the required verification of qualification/training certificates was already done and no fresh verification was required in terms of Rule 12 read with Rule 7(iv) of Service Rules of 2021. Moreover, as per the 64th committee meeting, there were total number of 543 teachers whose qualification/training certificates were verified earlier and accordingly they were permitted to work but payment was to be made after approval of the competent authority namely, administrative -cum-disciplinary authority. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are similarly placed as that of aforesaid 543 teachers. It is the case of the petitioners that they are amongst aforesaid 512 teachers who have not been allowed to work subject to verification of requisite educational qualification/training certificates pending approval of their service and verification of their qualification/training certificates by the competent authority under the service Rules of 2021.
33. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action and orders restraining the petitioners from performing their duty subject to scrutiny of the selection process including verification of qualification/training certificates is justified and calls for no interference even if the impugned orders were passed without notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to one or the other petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners have failed to act in terms of Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 by which the petitioners were duty bound to deposit the qualification/training certificates within 15 days which were to be sent for verification within next 15 days.
3934. Otherwise also the matter relates to education of children. The children not only have the right to education but also the right to have quality education and therefore exposing the children to teachers who do not have required prescribed qualification in terms of the advertisement or the rules governing their engagement or exposing them to those teachers whose qualification/training certificates are yet to be verified, cannot be permitted. The larger interest of the children has to be taken care of and the teachers cannot be allowed to continue teaching merely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
35. In order to emphasize upon the right of the children to have quality education a number of decisions have been cited by the respondents.
a) In the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 215 (The State of Jharkhand Vs. Moulishri Priya and others - LPA No. 210 of 2014), it has been held that requisite minimum qualification prescribed by law cannot be overlooked or waived by anyone. Appointments made despite lack of minimum qualification are illegal.
b) In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2018) 13 SCC 560 (State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others), the action of the State Government granting exemption from mandatory minimum qualification prescribed by Central Government under section 23(2) of Right to Education Act, 2009 has been held to be illegal. It has also been held that proper qualifications of teachers are mandatory and cannot be waived. In Paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that fundamental right to free and compulsory education is one of the most important rights as without education one may never know his other rights and that right to education is right to quality education.
c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the view expressed by Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case reported in 2013 SCC Online All 4097 (Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of UP) dealing with the importance of a trained teacher. The Hon'ble 40 Supreme Court held that to make the right to education meaningful, a qualified teacher undoubtedly has a significant role. After quoting and agreeing with the views of the Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 26 as follows:
"26. We are in agreement with the above observations. We are unable to agree that even unqualified teachers ought to be allowed to continue ignoring the legislative mandate or that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 to undo the said mandate. Consideration for career of 1.78 lakh Shiksha Mitras, over and above their legal right, cannot be at the cost of fundamental right of children to free quality education by duly qualified teachers in terms of legislative mandate."
d) In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty) it has been held that the excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff and therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualification prescribed as an eligibility, standards of education cannot be enhanced/maintained. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that with regards to grant of recognition and affiliation even for non-governmental and non-aided private colleges, it is mandatory to adhere to the condition imposed which also includes the minimum eligibility for appointment of teaching staff.
e) In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 10 of 2021 (District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Deoghar and another Vs. Saral Pandit and others) decided on 30.08.2023, the writ petitioner was working as para teacher since the year 2003 and his services were terminated on the ground that he was not having the educational qualification of intermediate or its equivalent. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the order of termination was set-aside but the Hon'ble Division Bench held that Madhyama certificate issued by Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not the same as Madhyama 41 certificate issued by Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and on this ground the judgment by the learned Single Judge was set-aside and the order of termination of the para teacher was held as valid.
36. The teachers would certainly resume their work upon completion of necessary scrutiny in terms of the 64th committee meeting of JEPC, if it is in their favour. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the action of the respondents restraining the petitioners from performing their duty as teachers awaiting the result of the scrutiny by the competent administrative-cum-disciplinary authority under the Service Rules of 2021 even if the same is without issuing any notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The right of the children to have quality education cannot be compromised under any circumstances.
37. Further, a counter-affidavit has been filed in W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 mentioning that the legality and validity of the appointment of teachers who were appointed for Class 1 to 5 were to be considered by the Panchayat Level Anushashanik Sah Prashashanik Pradhikar [ Panchayat Level Disciplinary- cum-Administrative Authority] and the teachers who were appointed for class 6 to 8, their legality and validity of the appointment were to be considered by the Block Level Disciplinary-cum-Administrative Authority in terms of the Service Rules of 2021 . It was alleged in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid disciplinary authorities were sitting tight over the matter and were not taking any decision and it was urged that the aforesaid disciplinary authorities before whom the matter regarding scrutiny of appointments were pending, were necessary parties. A stand has also been taken that the petitioners have no right to continue and get any payment so long as the matter is kept pending by the respective disciplinary authorities as mentioned above.
38. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 placing on record the proceedings of the concerned disciplinary authorities stating that decision to restore the services of the teachers, including some of the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2023 has been taken but specific details with regards to name and identity of the candidates/petitioners have not been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel 42 appearing on behalf of the JEPC that almost all the Panchayat Level Disciplinary Authorities dealing with the cases of such teachers who were recruited for teaching of class 1 to 5 have already scrutinized such cases and the authorities are now in the process of scrutinizing the cases of assistant teachers of class 6 to 8 whose disciplinary authority is at the block level and it has been submitted that the needful will be done immediately after Lok Sabha elections. It has also been submitted that the order passed by the Panchayat Level Disciplinary Authorities are appealable in terms of the Services Rules of 2021 and steps are being taken/already been taken to approach the appellate authority against the order passed by the disciplinary authority granting post- facto approval of the appointment of teachers.
39. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that those petitioners teaching class 1 to 5 whose selection has been approved by the competent authority under Service Rules of 2021 in terms of the decision taken in 64th committee meeting of JEPC and whose educational qualifications have been duly verified by the competent authority under the Service Rules of 2021 , there are to be taken in service forthwith subject to any specific interim order/final order by the appellate authority with regards to one or the other petitioner. It is further observed that the appellate authority shall not be prejudiced by the aforesaid direction of this Court so far as the merit of the case with respect to one or the other teacher is concerned. So far as consequential relief regarding payment for the period during which they have been kept out of service is concerned, the same would be considered by the appellate authority upon being approached by one or the other teacher by filing separate applications which would be disposed of by a reasoned order along with the appeal. Case of each petitioner is required to be considered separately even if the appeals filed /to be filed are disposed of as a batch matter.
40. So far as the petitioners who are teachers of class 6 to 8 are concerned, the reason for pendency of required scrutiny was the Lok Sabha elections which is over and much time has elapsed. The concerned-administrative-cum disciplinary authority are directed to expeditiously decide the matter regarding scrutiny of such teachers in terms of the decision taken in 64th committee meeting of JEPC and the educational qualifications be also verified in terms of 43 the Service Rules of 2021 within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order to be communicated by the concerned petitioner by appearing before the authority and submitting relevant details/ documents with regard to their selection.
41. Further question is-
Whether the petitioners could be deprived of their wages during the period they have been restrained from working without suspending or terminating their services and during pendency of scrutiny of their appointment by the competent administrative-cum-disciplinary authority under the Service Rules of 2021?
42. The claim of wages by the petitioners for the period from 13th October 2023 since when the respondents have restrained the petitioners from working is primarily based on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "V.P. Gidroniya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another"
reported in (1970) 1 SCC 362 which has followed the judgment passed in the case of "Balvantray Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra" reported in AIR 1968 SC 800 wherein it has been, inter alia, held that-
i. The general principle is that an employer can suspend an employee of his pending an enquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such a suspension will relate to the payment of his wages during the period of such suspension.
ii. It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid an employee to work, is not an implied terms in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract or of an express term in the contract itself.
iii. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such a power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that an employer would have no power to suspend an employee of his and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay the employee's wages during the period of suspension.
iv. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. v. It is equally well-settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of employment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be 44 entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which, it could be withheld.
vi. The distinction between suspending the contract of a service of a servant and suspending him from performing the duties of his office on the basis that the contract is subsisting is important. The suspension in the latter case is always an implied term in every contract of service. When an employee is suspended in this sense, it means that the employer merely issues a direction to him that he should not do the service required of him during a particular period. In other words, the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which because the contract is subsisting, the employee must obey.
43. Findings in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the aforesaid judgment reported in (1970) 1 SCC 362 (supra) are as under:
"6. Three kinds of suspension are known to law. A public servant may be suspended as a mode of punishment or he may be suspended during the pendency of an enquiry against him if the order appointing him or statutory provisions governing his service provide for such suspensions. Lastly he may merely be forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him which act is also called suspension. The right to suspend as a measure of punishment as well as the right to suspend the contract of service during the pendency of an enquiry are both regulated by the contract of employment or the provisions regulating the conditions of service. But the last category of suspension referred to earlier is the right of the master to forbid his servant from doing the work which he had to do under the terms of the contract of service or the provisions governing his conditions of service at the same time keeping in force the master's obligations under the contract. In other words the master may ask his servant to refrain from rendering his service but he must fulfil his part of the contract.
7. The legal position as regards a master's right to place his servants under suspension is now well settled by the decisions of this Court. In Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union the question whether a master could suspend his servant during the pendency of an enquiry came up for consideration by this Court. Therein this Court observed that it was well settled that under the ordinary law of master and servant the power to suspend the servant without pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of service between the master and the servant but must arise either from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provision governing such contract. It was further observed therein that ordinarily in the absence of such a power either in express terms in the contract or under the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work he will have to pay the wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and the servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay.
8. The same view was reiterated by this Court in T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem. The rule laid down in the above decisions was followed by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India. The law on the subject was exhaustively reviewed in Balvantray Ratilal Patel v. State of 45 Maharashtra. Therein the legal position was stated thus: The general principle is that an employer can suspend an employee of his pending an enquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such a suspension will relate to the payment of his wages during the period of such suspension. It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid an employee to work, is not an implied terms in an ordinary contract. between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such a power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that an employer would have no power to suspend an employee of his and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay the employee's wages during the period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. It is equally well-settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of employment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which, it could be withheld. The distinction between suspending the contract of a service of a servant and suspending him from performing the duties of his office on the basis that the contract is subsisting is important. The suspension in the latter case is always an implied term in every contract of service. When an employee is suspended in this sense, it means that the employer merely issues a direction to him that he should not do the service required of him during a particular period. In other words, the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which because the contract is subsisting, the employee must obey."
44. It has been clearly held in the aforesaid judgment that it is well-settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against an employee while an enquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of employment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which, it could be withheld. It has been clearly held that the distinction between suspending the contract of service of a servant and suspending him from performing the duties of his office on the basis that the contract is subsisting is important. The suspension in the latter case is always an implied term in every contract of service. When an employee is suspended in this sense, it means that the employer merely issues a direction to him that he should not do the service required of him during a particular period. In other words, the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which because the contract is subsisting, the employee must obey.
4645. Thus, the aforesaid judgment clearly holds that if the employer issues an order to the employee not to perform duty when the contract is subsisting, the employee is bound to follow it because of the subsisting contract and the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which, it could be withheld.
46. However, in the present case the following discussions would reveal that there is no subsisting contract on account of non-renewal read with the aforesaid specific terms of the contract. In absence of subsisting contract, there is no question of payment of wages for the period from 13.10.2023 onwards during which the petitioners were directed to stop working. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioners in any manner considering the facts and circumstances of this case.
47. The appointment of the petitioners way back in 2006-2008 was contractual and the contract was for a period of one year. It is relevant to refer to the clause in the contractual agreement which provides that in absence of renewal of contract, the contract would automatically terminate and for this purpose no formal communication is required to be given and it also provides that both the parties could terminate the contract by giving only one month's notice and without assigning any reasons and will have no right to continue. The relevant clause of the agreement with regards to renewal is quoted as under:
"यह नवीकरण नहीीं हुआ तो चयन सींबींधी यह एकरारनामा अपने ननधााररत अवनध के पूणा हो जाने पर स्वतः समाप्त हो जाएगा। यनि सेवा - समाप्तप्त सींबींधी नकसी नननित नतनि का इस एकरारनामे में उल्लेख नहीीं हुआ है, तक भी इस सींबींध में सनमनत द्वारा कोई औपचाररक सूचना िी जानी आवश्यक नहीीं होगा। िोनो पक्ोीं में से कोई भी ननधााररत अवनध पूणा होने के पूवा भी एक माह की सूचना के साि इस एकरारनामा से नबना कोई कारण बतायें अलग हो सकते है। सनमनत एवीं सहयोगी निक्क द्वारा यह घोनित नकया जाता है एवीं सहमनत व्यक्त की जाती है नक इसे एकरारनामे के अधीन प्रिान की गई कोई भी सेवा उसे कभी भी इस नवद्यालय/केन्द्र अिवा नकसी अन्य िैक्नणक सींस्िान में सींप्रनत नवद्यमान अिवा भनवष्य में उत्पन्न होनेवाला ररप्तक्तयोीं के नवरूद्ध अींतरलीनीकरण का कोई अनधकार नहीीं िे ती ।"
48. The petitioners have not brought on record documents relating to renewal of their contract/agreement from time to time and in absence of renewal it cannot be said that they had any legal right to continue even if they continued to work and have received wages for the work. There is no provision 47 of automatic renewal of contract/agreement. Rather, as per the terms of contract/agreement, the agreement stand terminated in case it is not renewed.
49. It is also apparent from the records that the engagement of para teachers including that of the petitioners in the aforesaid two blocks in the district of Palamau was under cloud right from the year 2012 whose background and details have been mentioned in 64th meeting of the State Executive Committee of JEPC and the nature of illegality/irregularities includes non-approval of selection by the competent authority, non-verification of educational qualification/training certificates and not having minimum educational qualification in terms of the advertisement. There have been repeated reports pointing out towards aforesaid illegality/irregularities but the teachers continued to work and receive payment. There has also been audit objection with regards to continued payment to these teachers without scrutinizing the legality and validity of their appointment which was followed by the impugned actions/letters restraining them from working and stopping any payment to them pending scrutiny of their appointment.
50. The requirement of approval of appointment and verification of educational qualification/training certificates was always there even at the time of the appointment of the petitioners way back in the year 2006-2008 and such provision was also included in the Service Rules of 2021 governing the para teachers already in service. In the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 306 of 2014 (supra) , the consequence of non-approval of appointment of para teachers by the Block Education Committee has been considered and it has been observed that selection of para teachers are to be approved by the competent authority who are conferred the power by Jharkhand Education Project Council and that the original writ petitioners of the said case failed to establish such approval of their appointment by Block Education Committee which aspect of the matter was properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3598 of 2011 vide order dated 10th April 2014.
51. This Court is of the considered view that non-approval of appointment of teachers by the competent authority at the relevant point of time has a serious bearing in the matter of selection of teachers and on account of such failure, no 48 legal right crystalizes in their favour to continue. Merely because the agreement was entered into by the Village Education Committee with the petitioners, the same does not crystalize any right in their favour in case where the appointment was not approved by the competent authority as the agreement was to be entered only after approval of appointment and verification of educational/training certificates. Approval of appointment is not a mere formality as the same is coupled with verification of the educational/training certificates of the appointees. There is also serious cloud in connection with the satisfaction of minimum educational qualification by numerous candidates.
52. In the aforesaid circumstances, the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to refrain from teaching and also stopping the payment of wages to them subject to scrutiny of their appointment and also taking a decision to grant post-facto approval upon scrutiny of the process of appointment and verification of documents, cannot be said to be an order of suspension.
53. In view of the fact that the contract of employment was never extended, the discontinuation of the petitioners to work as para teachers does not come within the meaning of term 'suspension' as they do not have any legal right to continue. However, the State Executive Committee of JEPC in its 64th meeting has taken a sympathetic view by deciding to regularize the services of those 113 teachers who had the requisite qualifications but there was procedural irregularity in the matter of grant of approval of service /verification of their educational/training certificate . However, unless such an exercise is complete and decision is taken by the respondents with regards to the terms and conditions of continuation of such teachers, they cannot claim any right to continue and their discontinuation pending scrutiny cannot be said to be arising out of suspension of service. The question of suspension of service arises only for those who are in service by virtue of subsisting contract of service and have a legal right to continue in service and in the present case the conditions are not satisfied inasmuch as neither the contract of engagement has been continued nor the petitioners have a legal right to continue. The petitioners would have a right only when post facto approval is granted to their engagement after due scrutiny in terms of the decision in 64th committee meeting of JEPC which has 49 been said to have been done so far only with respect of teachers of class 1 to 5 for which appropriate directions have already been issued above.
54. The contract of engagement having not been extended, the respondents were within their right to ask the petitioners not to discharge duties and also not to make payment till scrutiny of their appointment and post facto approval by the competent authority under the Service Rules of 2021.
55. The petitioners having not been able to show the subsisting contract of service have no right to continue and therefore violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of restraining them from discharging their duty and stopping payment of wages has no bearing in the matter. The petitioners do not have any right to continue in service after expiry of the period of contract.
56. The petitioners do not have any legal right to continue without extension or renewal of contract as per the scheme of their appointment and therefore, the respondents do not have any legal obligation to continue them and to make payment during the period they have asked the petitioners not to work. It is one thing to say that they have in fact continued in service and were also paid, but that by itself does not confer any right on them to continue in service or have any continuity of service. The question of their continuation/continuity in service arises only in terms of the Service Rules of 2021 upon due verification of their educational/training certificates in terms of Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2021 read with the decision of the State Executive Committee of JEPC in its 64th meeting held on 10th July 2023. In absence of due approval of service by the competent authority and due verification of the educational/training certificates, the selection process of the petitioners cannot be said to be complete.
57. However, if one or the other petitioner is able to demonstrate before the authority and upon scrutiny it is found that their selection was complete in all respects and they had a subsisting contract to continue in service, they would certainly have a right to claim the wages as they have been kept out of work at the instance of the respondents and by virtue of the impugned action/letters. Unless such scrutiny is done, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned action or letters of the respondents and is not inclined to direct the respondents to pay remuneration to the petitioners who have been restrained from working 50 and also deprived from wages. There is no dispute with regards to the payment for the period the petitioners have worked.
58. It is important to observe that the teachers who do not have the requisite qualifications or their educational/training certificates are found to be forged or illegal, their cases would stand on a different footing. Such appointments would be illegal and, in such circumstances, there would be no occasion to continue them in service or to make any payment. So far as those teachers who are to be treated as 'special case' in terms of the decision in the 64th committee meeting of JEPC on account of procedural irregularity in the matter of their appointment, it is for the respondents to decide as to under what terms and conditions they are to be continued keeping in light the Service Rules of 2021. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners would essentially be subject to final outcome of the scrutiny by the competent authority in terms of the 64th committee meeting of JEPC read with the Service Rules of 2021.
59. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned action/letters and to direct the respondents to allow all the petitioners to continue teaching in schools or direct the respondents to pay wages to the petitioners pending decision regarding post facto approval of their appointment or pending scrutiny of their appointment with regards to requisite educational qualification. However, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the observations and directions contained particularly in paragraphs 39, 40, 57 and 58 of this judgment.
60. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/AFR 51