Jharkhand High Court
Sur Singh Hasda vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2102 of 2008
Sur Singh Hasda ........Petitioner
With
W.P.(S) No. 2997 of 2008
Ishwar Chandra Sinku ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3052 of 2008
Prafull Aind ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2691 of 2008
Bhubaneswar Jarika ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3170 of 2008
Shankar Sinku ..... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6325 of 2008
Abhay Chandra Birua...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6338 of 2008
Bamiya Tubid ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6339 of 2008
Madho Sawaiyan ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6344 of 2008
Sumitra Birua ..... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6348 of 2008
Nageshwari Tubid ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6349 of 2008
Chandra Bhushan Pingua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6352 of 2008
Paikarae Tubid ..... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 6362 of 2008
Bagrai Birua ...... Petitioner.
With
-2-
W.P.(S) No. 497 of 2009
Bikram Boipai ........ Petitioner
With
W.P.(S) No. 6384 of 2008
Prakash Tubid ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 1775 of 2009
Jay Ram Besra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 455 of 2009
Nixon Jamuda ..... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 1397 of 2009
Man Singh Honhaga...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 1398 of 2009
Samu Purty ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2346 of 2008
Raj Kumar Hembrom..... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2362 of 2008
Baidya Nath Bodra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2443 of 2008
Madhuri Bobonga ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2464 of 2008
Narayan Karowa ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2008
Subhash Chandra Jamuda ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2613 of 2008
Kumari Neelam Jonko ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2639 of 2008
Shankar Laguri ...... Petitioner.
-3-
With
W.P.(S) No. 2718 of 2008
Jug Singh Balmuchu ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2722 of 2008
Baldeo Hembrom ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2724 of 2008
Prem Prakash Korah ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2751 of 2008
Selay Purty ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2752 of 2008
Bagun Jarika ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2754 of 2008
Jawahar Lal Purty ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2795 of 2008
Shankar Singh Melgandi @ Melgandi Shankar Singh ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 4035 of 2008
Dushru Pareya ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2591 of 2008
Jyoti Kumari Birua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3037 of 2008
Naresh Jojo ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3038 of 2008
Dulu Diggi ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3039 of 2008
Kamal Kishore Bobonga ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3940 of 2008
Ganga Ram Kerai ...... Petitioner.
-4-
With
W.P.(S) No. 3041 of 2008
Sudarshan Jerai ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3089 of 2008
Krishna Sinku ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2347 of 2008
Gomeya Bodra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 3872 of 2008
Mathura Pingua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2053 of 2008
Sadhu Charan Birua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2055 of 2008
Jagdish Chandra Birua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2067 of 2008
Somnath Tubid ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2071 of 2008
Anju Kumari Jonko ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2077 of 2008
Mohan Singh Kuntia ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2085 of 2008
Gumi Banra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2092 of 2008
Ram Sahay Jarika ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2093 of 2008
Sita Ram Banra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2191 of 2008
Budhadeo Gagrai ...... Petitioner.
-5-
With
W.P.(S) No. 2194 of 2008
Hemant Gagrai ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2207 of 2008
Karan Singh Gagrai ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2260 of 2008
Chandra Mohan Sinku ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2291 of 2008
Motay Purty ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2306 of 2008
Majhee Bodra ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2307 of 2008
Diku Haiburu ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2308 of 2008
Sona Mani Diggi ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2315 of 2008
Sita Pareya ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2325 of 2008
Ganpath Birua ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2336 of 2008
Guru Charan Jarika ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2345 of 2008
Makru Soy ...... Petitioner.
With
W.P.(S) No. 2348 of 2008
Kameshwar Purty ...... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
-6-
2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources,
Development Department , Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources,
Development Department , Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum Chairman, District
Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum
5. The District Superintendent of Education,
West Singhbhum .... Respondents.
CORAM: - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioner : M/s K.M. Verma, M.M. Sharma
& Lakhan Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M/s M.S. Akhtar, S.C. (Mines)
A.K. Mehta, J.C. to S.C. (Mines)
& Sarvendra Kumar, J.C. to G.A.
04/ 14.07.2011: Heard counsel for the respective parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved on account of failure on the part of the respondents to give appointment as Assistant Teacher in "Ho" language for which he/ she was duly selected and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended his/ her case along with a list of 187 candidates after due selection for the language "Ho" and name of the petitioner figures in the list.
Prayer is to issue writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 6th October 2009 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department , Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, declined to appoint the petitioner even after due selection for the reasons that he/she did not possess the training in "Ho' subject by a duly recognized Institution, namely, National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.).
Learned counsel submits that when the advertisement was issued in the year 2002, the requirement of trained teacher in the particular subject was not an essential qualification and consequently,duly filled forms were accepted and he/she was permitted to appear in the selection process. It is only at subsequent date, certain government orders were passed by the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of Primary Education Appointment Rules, 2002. -7- The Government orders making the training in the particular subject from N.C.T.E. was implemented vide G.O. No. 2912 dated 13.11.2003, G.O. No. 404 dated 16.02.2004 and G.O. No. 746 dated 27.03.2004. It is subsequent to the issuance of these Government Orders ,the respondents did not proceed to issue his/her appointment letter despite selection. The petitioner was neither served any notice nor any publication by way of an explanation was issued. Petitioner was kept completely in dark.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently supported the impugned order and submits that since the petitioner lacks basic requirement i.e. training from a Government Institution in "Ho" language, therefore, he/ she is not entitled for appointment. In case appointment letter is issued that will be against the own settled rule of the Government.
After hearing the respective counsels and also going through the records, I am in agreement with the first submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the time when advertisement was made and the petitioner was permitted to appear in selection process, this requirement was not in existence and it has been made effective only at a subsequent date by means of Government orders, which cannot be given retrospective effect. The State has not come forward with any such order that it has been applied with retrospective effect. There can be no presumption that it was to be implemented retrospectively. It is also brought to my notice that the language "Ho" is one of the subjects prescribed in Std. I to IV in the district of West Singhbhum, the Government Schools are offering this subject. The State of Jharkhand is also publishing text books in the said language, but there is no teacher to teach the subject "Ho" language in the institution. The stand taken by the State that training in "Ho" language is essential from a Government Institution, If accepted then, we have to examine whether there is any such Government Institution imparting training in the subject "Ho" within the country or not. Specific question was put to the State Counsel and he was not able to -8- point out even a single such Institution. I can also not overlook that as per directive principles enshrined in Article 41 to be read with Fundamental Duties, as stated in Article 51 (A) of the Constitution of India, it is an obligation upon the State Government to retain its rich, heritage and culture and, therefore, "Ho" language being a rich, heritage and culture of this State, ought to be taught properly to the students of at least Primary level. Though, the State is offering one of the subjects as a "Ho" language, there is not a single teacher for this language in the State of Jharkhand.
In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner stands fully justified. A direction is given to the respondents that such selected candidates in the subject "Ho", who have qualified and were recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the list was published, which is also a part of the records, are entitled for their appointment. Admittedly such institution functioning in the district of West Singhbhum was devoid any such teacher and, therefore, teaching is very essential in all those Institutions. The Government shall take steps within a period of four months and issue appointment letters to such candidates, who were duly selected and recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and to ensure that within time frame fixed by this Court is adhered to and the appointment letters are issued to them. The respondents shall not insist for a trained certificate in "Ho" language from N.C.T.E. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of.
(POONAM SRIVASTAV, J) Sharma