Jharkhand High Court
Gautam Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Others on 17 February, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1 W.P.(S) 2816 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2816 of 2015
.....
Gautam Kumar S/o Late Sheo Kumar Sah, R/o Village- Kamrachak (Mordiha),
P.O. Mordiha, P.s. Thakur Gangti, District Godda
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Establishment compassionate
Committee, Godda P.O., P.s. And District Godda.
3. District Education Officer, Godda P,O, P.S and District Godda.
4. District Superintendent of Education, Godda P.O., P.S and District Godda.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
C.A.V. on 28/10/2016 Pronounced on 17/02/2017
Dr. S.N. Pathak , J. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has come out with a prayer commanding upon the
respondents and directing them to appoint the petitioner on Class III post
although the petitioner was appointed on Class-IV on compassionate
ground on account of death of his father and the candidates whose
qualification are intermediate have been appointed on class-III post
ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the petitioner
Sheo Kumar Sahu died in harness on 27.06.2012 while he was posted as
teacher in Govt. Middle School Ithari, Anchal-Mehrama, District Godda.
After death of his father, the petitioner filed an application for appointment
on compassionate ground in Class- III post. Thereafter, a meeting was
held on 23.07.2013 by the District Establishment Compassionate
Committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Godda and
petitioner was appointed on class IV post vide Memo No. 1236 dated
05.09.2013although the petitioner's claim was for class III post. Under the R.T.I. Act, petitioner was sought information regarding appointment on compassionate ground from the Collectorate, Godda in which the information was furnished to the petitioner vide Memo No. 311 dated 18.05.2015. From perusal of Memo, it transpires that Chandrakant 2 W.P.(S) 2816 of 2015 Murmu, Md. Sarwar Allam, Gayatri Kumari and Shailendra Kumar have been appointed on Class III post on compassionate ground although their qualifications are intermediate and though the petitioner was Graduate B.A. (Hons) in Second Division, was appointed on Class-IV post; hence, this writ application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities have adopted pick and choose method ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the petitioner possesses higher qualification then the persons appointed on Class III post but illegally and arbitrarily, he has been denied the appointment on Class III post, whereas the others having lesser qualifications, have been appointed on Class III post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as similarly situated persons, having qualifications of intermediate, have been appointed on Class III, post ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the same is against the mandate of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner was offered and granted employment in Class IV post whereas in the same proceeding, Md. Sarwar Alam and Shailendra Kumar were appointed in Class III post. Argument was advanced that from the seniority list preferred for granting compassionate appointment name of this petitioner is at Serial No. 15, whereas Shailendra Kumar is at Serial No. 16, meaning thereby, the petitioner was discriminated for the reasons best known to the respondents, since Shailendra Kumar, whose name was below the name of the petitioner, has been granted compassionate appointment on Class III post. Since, the petitioner has been discriminated of his legitimate right, this writ petition has been filed.
5. Per contra, the respondents have denied the allegations by filing counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that at the time of petitioner's appointment, his qualification was intermediate and he was not trained (meaning thereby Teacher Training or B.Ed. or equivalent qualification) and he was also not TET qualified which was a necessary qualification for the post of teacher in elementary school. An untrained teacher shall not be eligible for the post of teacher as per the direction issued vide Memo No. 2281 dated 05.12.2012 by the Director of Primary Education, Human Resources Development 3 W.P.(S) 2816 of 2015 Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner's appointment as per decision dated 06.05.2013 was approved in Class IV post by the Committee on 23.07.2013, whereas Md. Sarbar Alam and Shailendra Kumar were appointed in Class III post as per the decision dated 23.07.2013 as they were holding requisite qualification. Learned counsel for the State draws the attention of the Court to Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit dated 01.09.2016, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to 4, wherein it has been stated that "
District Establishment Compassionate Committee, Godda took entire matter minutely and rejected the petitioner's claim on the basis of letter Memo No. 10167 dated 01.12.2015 issued by Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, that the decisions of the District Establishment Compassionate Committee cannot be reconsidered / changed from any of grade or post after appointment on basis of compassionate ground. Hence, there is no illegality in appointing the petitioner in Class IV post. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that unless and until the minimum qualification is achieved by a candidate, he cannot be appointed on the post claimed for.
6. Be that as it may having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that case of the petitioner has been considered and he has already been given appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground which he has duly accepted and joined. As a matter of right petitioner cannot demand particular type of post because appointment has been done on compassionate basis, which is an exception to the general procedure for appointment prescribed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily for getting employment in the State, one has to compete with others after public advertisement, but, compassionate appointment is an exception to this general rule. In fact, there is no statutory duty vested in the State of Jharkhand to offer a particular post on compassionate basis. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan SRTC v. Revat Singh, (2015) 11 SCC 802 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 307 in paragraph 8 I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, has held that, "compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. It is further held in said case that even though higher post was applied for on compassionate ground, when a lower post offered considering
4 W.P.(S) 2816 of 2015 qualification and eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot claim higher post".
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances, no interference is required in the instant writ petition and the writ petition is devoid of merit as the petitioner has already been offered compassionate appointment on Class IV which he has duly accepted. No appointment can be made even on compassionate ground for a post for which the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum required qualification. In the instant case, the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of teacher.
7. In view of the settled law and in view of legal proposition, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated - February 17, 2017 Punit/ NAFR