Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Anee Agnesh Murmu & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 22 July, 2013

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                WP(S) No. 3371 of 2006
                                         ­­­­
              Anee Agnesh Murmu & ors.               ...   ...     Petitioners 
                                      ­Versus­
              State of Jharkhand and Ors.            ...   ...   Respondents
                                         ­­­­
              CORAM :       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                         ­­­­
              For the Petitioner        :M/s Rajiv Ranjan & Krishna Murari
              For the Respondents       :M/s. Ram Niwas Roy, J. Rahman &
                                               Sanjay Kumar Pandey.
                                         ­­­­
14­  22.7.2013       Herd learned counsel for the parties.

             1.      Counsel for the State has submitted that an affidavit was filed on 

             10th July,2012 by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka and 

             the office was directed to trace the same and place it on record. As per 

             office report, no such affidavit has been filed. Counsel for the State, 

             however, submits that by the said affidavit only the resolution dated 

             15.11.1978

 was brought on record along with the order of rejection of  petitioner   nos.   2   to   4.   The   said   circular   is,   however,   contained   in  compilation   of   the   Bihar   Rajya   Prarambhik   Shiksha,   Vidhi   Evam  Vidhan.   The   rejection   orders   passed   by   the   Director   in   respect   of  petitioner   nos.   2   to   4   dated   22.6.2012   are   already   there     on   record.  Therefore,   counsel   for   the   respondent­State   also   submits   that   for  adjudication   of   the   instant   writ   application   reliance   upon   such  affidavit may not be necessary.

2. The   present   writ   application   has   been   preferred   by   four   writ  petitioners   with   common   grievances   that   the   preposition   statement  sent through the office of the District Superintendent of Education for  approval   by   the   Directorate   of   Primary   Education,   Government   of  Jharkhand has been rejected by different impugned orders in respect of  each   of   them.   The   rejection   order   of   the   petitioner   no.   1   is   dated  19.7.2005, which is contained in Annexure­12 to the writ petition. The  rejection order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the same Director of Primary  Education, Government of Jharkhand as contained in memo nos. 1079,  1080   and   1081   have   also   subsequently   been   challenged   by   the   writ  petitioners in I.A. No. 925 of 2013, which was allowed by order dated  2. 15.7.2013 to be incorporated in the main writ petition.

3. The common case of these petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1  was   appointed   as   Assistant   Teacher   having   special   knowledge   in  Santhali   pursuant   to   the   advertisement   dated   8.8.1988   and   other  similar advertisements were issued in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 4  by   the   respective   managing   committee   of   the   Middle   school.   The  petitioner no. 1 had joined on 30.8.1988 vide Annexure­2 to the writ  petition.   The   District   Superintendent   of   Education   gave   temporary  approval   of   her   services   vide   Annexure­4   dated   3.12.1998.   The  petitioner no. 2 was appointed in Primary School, Dun Mission by the  managing committee after following due procedure on 11.5.1990 and  was   also   subjected   to   approval   of   the   District   Superintendent   of  Education   vide   memo   dated   11.5.1990.   Annexure­5   series   are  temporary approval letters of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 respectively, who  were   appointed   by   the   managing   committee   of   St.   Joseph's   School,  Gohiajori on 22.11.1989 and in Primary school, Chutkapani Mission on  12.1.1992.   Annexure­6   series   is   the   approval   granted   in   favour   of  petitioner nos. 3 and 4 by the District Superintendent of Education,  Dumka   dated   6.1.1990   and   12.3.1992.   These   petitioners   thereafter  continued to serve their respective schools in their respective places in  which   they   were   appointed.   However,   they   were   not   having   the  Teacher's   Training   qualification.   The   Regional   Deputy   Director   of  Education, however, recommended the petitioner no. 1 for  in house  training at Teachers' Training College, Jasidih by order dated 30.3.2000  (Anneuxre­7).   Petitioner   no.   2   was   also   sent   for   in   house   teachers'  training   course   by   the   approval   of   the   Regional   Deputy   Director   of  Eduction,   Dumka,   through   his   letter   dated   9.12.1999,   Annexure­8.  Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were also sent for in house teachers' training  at  Primary   Teachers'       Training   School,   Ghormara   vide   order   dated  2.8.1999 and 9.12.1999, Annexure­9 series issued by the R.D.D., Santhal  3.   Pargana.     All   these   petitioners   completed   their   teachers'   training  course successfully and their certificates are annexed as Annexure­10  series, which shows the effective date of completion of the training  i.e.  3.5.2002.   These   petitioners   were   thereafter   transposed   in   matric  trained scale by the respective management of the minority school, in  which they were working continuously. The D.S.E thereafter prepared a  preposition   statement   for   approval   by   the   Directorate   of   Primary  Education  in respect  of these  teachers,  pursuant to  which  the   State  grants aid to the respective minority schools for payment of salary of  such teachers whose preposition statement has been approved by the  competent   authority.     However,   the     preposition   statement   of  petitioner   no.   1   was   rejected   by   the   impugned   order   contained   at  Annexure­12 dated 19.7.2005, however, no order was passed in respect  of petitioner nos. 2 to 4. Their rejection as aforesaid has been passed  on 22.6.2012, which have been allowed to be challenged by way of an  I.A. No. 925 of 2013. 

4. According to learned counsel, the petitioner no. 1 had occasion  to come before Patna High Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 5813 of 1997  (P), which, however, was decided by judgment rendered by the learned  single Judge of this Court on 11.4.2004 as the matter stood transferred  to this Court after bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar. The said writ  petition was preferred by the petitioner no.1 as she was not being paid  salary   since   April,   1994.   Leaned   single   Judge   of   the   Court   vide  judgment   dated   11.4.2007   took   into   account   the   fact   that   the   Apex  Court in a batch of Special Leave Petitions observed that in Santhal  Pargana, a large number of schools came to be closed on account of  non­availability   of   the   trained   teachers.   It     further   observed   that  though   under   the   norms,   trained   teachers   are   required,   however,  trained   teachers   being   not   available,   untrained   teachers   can   be  engaged. The Apex Court even observed that age relaxation be also  4. given. These observations were made to keep the stream of education  flowing in the backward areas of Santhal Pargna. Learned single Judge  thereafter proceeded to hold that since no trained teachers applied in  minority school, they engaged untrained teachers to impart education  to the students in the Santhal Pargana region. Even respondent no. 3  had   approved   the   appointment   though   temporarily.   Even   when   the  appointment   was   approved   no   condition   was   imposed   that   the  untrained   teachers   are   required   to   acquire   training   within   any  specified period and on their failure their services may be terminated.  It was found that petitioner no. 1, who was the sole petitioner in that  case   was   working   since   1988.   In   such   circumstances,   the   order  impugned therein was found to be unsustainable.  Therefore,  the writ  petition   was   accordingly,   allowed   and   respondents   were   directed   to  pay the salary of the petitioner for the period she has performed the  duty. It was also observed that in the event the petitioner continues in  service,   she   will   be   paid   her   salary   till   such   time   she   continues   in  service.

5. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   during   the  pendency   of   the   said   writ   application,   however,   the   preposition  statement   of   the   petitioner   no.1   had   been   rejected   by   order   dated  19.7.2005 though she had acquired the said teachers' training and had  continuously been working since her initial appointment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the sole  ground for rejection of the preposition statement in respect of not only  petitioner  no. 1 but also the other  three  petitioners as contained  in  impugned orders of rejection are based upon reliance of  a letter dated  15.11.1978 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Jharkhand  addressed   to   all   District   Superintendents   of   Education,   District  Education Officers and other authorities. He submits that the import of  the said  letter is that no recognition or approval of the appointment of  5. untrained   teachers   would   be   given   in   any   linguistic   or   religious  minority   school,   who   have   been   appointed   after   1.1.1971.     Learned  counsel   for   the   petitioner,   however,   submits   that   the   respondent­  Director,   Primary   Education   has   in   a   wholly   unfair   and   arbitrary  manner   placed   reliance   upon   a   circular   of   1978   to   refuse   the  preposition statement in respect of these petitioners, though they have  fulfilled the requirement of training pursuant to the orders passed by  the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana himself. It  is   further   submitted   that     at   his   stage   after   the   petitioners   having  worked for more than 17 to 20 years in each individual cases and the  minority school also supporting their stand, the respondent­Director  Primary Education was wholly unjustified in refusing approval to the  preposition statement.  Learned  counsel for the petitioner  has relied  upon a judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Sudarshan  Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in [2003 (1) JCR 583  (Jhr)] in support of his case where the same circular, which was made  effective from 1.1.1971,  was also raised before the learned single Judge  in   the   said   case.   He   submits   that  in   such   circumstances,   which   are  similar   to   the   present   one,   where   the   said   petitioners   had   also  remained   in   service   in   minority   school   from   1981,   the   stand   of   the  respondents   questioning   the   initial   appointment   was   held   to   be  impermissible   in   the   fact   that   after   almost   19   years   of   service,   the  matter could not be allowed to be re­opened. 

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the  impugned   order   needs   to   be   quashed.   The   respondents   have  deliberately   overlooked   the   reasonings   recorded   in   the   judgment  rendered   by   the   learned   single   Judge   of   this   Court   in   respect   of  petitioner   no.1   vide   judgment   dated   11.4.2007,   which   takes   into  account   the   circumstances   in   which   untrained   teachers   were  appointed in the Santhal Pargana in minority schools. They have also  6. totally overlooked the observation made by the Apex Court recorded by  the learned single Judge in the said judgment also. Their acts are in fact  bordering on being contemptuous.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent­State ,on the other hand,  has   relied   upon   a   letter   dated   15.11.1978,   which   according   to   him  places a proscription or bar on approval on any such appointment of  untrained teachers in linguistic or religious minority school appointed  after 1.1.1971. Learned counsel for the respondent­State, however, is  not able to dispute the factual matrix of the case where the Regional  Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Paragana had himself ordered  for in house training in respect of each of these four petitioners vide  Annexure­7, 8 and 9 series passed on 30.3.2000, 9.12.1999, 2.8.1999 and  9.12.1999.   These   petitioners   while   being   in   employment   had  undergone     teachers   training   course   in   recognized   Government  teachers' training College where they were recommended for training  and they have  successfully completed the training w.e.f. 3.5.2002, the  certificates being Annexure­10 series. The petitioners had continued in  service   since   1988­90­92   in   each   individual   cases.  The   respondent,  Director,   Primary   Education,   has   sought   to   rely   upon   the   circular  ­letter   dated   15.11.1978   to   refuse   approval   to   their   preposition  statement. 

9. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the minority schools,  however, have supported the petitioners. They have not   refuted the  aforesaid facts relating to the initial appointment of the petitioners as  also their  in house training on recommendation of the R.D.D. before  the   preposition   statements   were   rejected   by   the   Director,   Primary  Education, Government Jharkhand.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone though  the relevant materials on record. The facts of the instant case, which  have been narrated in some depth in the earlier part of the judgment    7. and   which   are   not   disputed   by   the   official   respondents,   show   that  these   petitioners   initially   were   appointed   as   untrained   teachers   in  minority   school   in   the   year   1988­90­92   respectively   pursuant   to  different advertisement issued by the minority school in question. The  petitioner no. 1 had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J. C. No. 5813  of 1997 (P) being aggrieved by the stoppage of salary since 1994. While  deciding the said writ petition learned single Judge of this Court vide  judgment   dated   11.4.2007   had   specifically   taken   note   of   the  observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the exigencies prevailing in  the   Santhal   Pargana   region   where   a   large   number   of   schools   were  being closed  on account of non­availability of trained teachers. The  learned single Judge also took into account the observation of the Apex  Court that if trained teachers were not available, untrained teachers  could be engaged by even  granting age relaxation so that the stream of  education keeps flowing in the backward areas of Santhal Pargna. In  such   circumstances,   the   respondents   were   directed   to   pay   salary   to  petitioner no. 1 for the period she continues in service. Admittedly, the  petitioner   no.   1's   services   were   never   terminated   even   during   the  pendency of the said writ petition or till date even after the impugned  order refusing preposition for payment of salary to the said petitioner. 

11. It   is   also   not   in   dispute   that   all   these   four   petitioners   have  undergone in  house training pursuant to the direction passed by the  Regional Deputy Director of Education, as referred to hereinabove vide  Annexure­7,  8 and  9 series passed on 30.3.2000,  9.12.1999,  2.8.1999.  After   they   had   undergone   training   successfully,   which   was   made  effective   from   3.5.2002,   the   minority   school   placed   them   in   the  category   of   matric   trained   teachers   and   made   recommendation   for  approval of the preposition statement, which was duly forwarded by  the District Superintendent of Education to the Directorate of Primary  Education. The said preposition statement in respect of all these  8. petitioner   have   been   rejected   by   the   impugned   order   as   contained  Annexure­12   dated   19.7.2005   and     Annexure­C   series   to   the  supplementary   counter   affidavit   filed   on   behalf   of   the   respondents  dated 22.6.2012, which has been impugned subsequently by an I.A. by  petitioners. The rejection obviously is based upon reliance upon the  letter   dated   15.11.1978,   which   prohibits   approval   of   services   of  untrained teachers in linguistic or religious minority school appointed  after 1.1.1971. The same circular was also under consideration in a case  decided by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4439 of  2000 reported in [2003 (1) JCR 583 (Jhr)]. The learned single Judge of  this Court found that it was too late after 19 years in the said case to  allow the respondents to reopen the matters when the petitioner had  worked   continuously   for   so   long   and   the   order   had   been   passed  without giving any opportunity to the petitioners.

12. The order of  the Director Primary Education, in the wake of the  aforesaid   facts,   which   have   been   narrated   herein­above   that   the  petitioners have been allowed to undergo in house training by order of  the R.D.D. himself while in service, cannot be said to sustainable in law  as well as on facts. The reliance of the respondents upon a letter dated  15.11.1978 in a matter relating to the appointment of the untrained  teachers in the Santhal Paragana division, in the circumstances which  was   also   taken   note   of   by   the     learned   single   Judge   in   CWJC  No.5813/1997(P)   in   the   case   of   petitioner   No.1,     is,   therefore,   far  fetched and not a rational ground to refuse the preposition statement  of these four petitioners, who have  been worked for quite long period  since 1988,1990 and 1992 respectively in the said schools.

13. In   these   circumstances,   therefore,   the   impugned   order   dated  19.7.2005   and   the   orders   dated   22.6.2012   passed   in   respect   of   the  petitioners'   cannot   be   sustained   in   law   and   on   facts   and   are  accordingly, quashed. Consequently, the respondent­the Director,  9. Primary Education shall take fresh decision in the matter in respect of  approval of preposition statement of the petitioners as also for release  of such salary of the petitioners in their respective pay scales from the  due dates from which they are entitled within a period of 12 weeks  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 

  This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Pandey