Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Rina Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6481 of 2022
1.Kumari Rina Prasad, wife of Mani Shankar Prasad Sahu
2.Mani Shankar Prasad Sahu, son of Matlu Prasad Sahu.
3.Ashok Kumar son of Gajendra Sahu. ....... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand.
3.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Rajbhasa and
Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand.
4.The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand.
5.The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
6.The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla
7.The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Shyamli, P.O and P.S-
Doranda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8.The Union of India through the Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, New Delhi. ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.C Mishra, Advocate
For the State : A.C to A.A.G-II
For the JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
-----------
rd
04/Dated: 3 April, 2023
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioners have prayed for regularization of the services of 'Para Teachers' against the sanctioned vacant post of Assistant Teacher.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under:
The petitioners are working as 'Para Teachers' since 10 to 15 years duly appointed by the competent authorities. Their appointments have been approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, who is the Chairman of the District Level Education Committee. The petitioners have also passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC), Ranchi. It is further stated that though there is 2 huge shortage of teachers in Primary/Middle Schools of the State but the Government has appointed Para Teachers under the scheme known as 'Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan'.
Further has been stated that though they are regularly discharging their duties as Para Teachers with similarly situated persons i.e. Assistant Teachers but the Para Teachers are being discriminated in honorarium, so as per Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, petitioners are entitled for parity in pay scale and service condition.
3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Jharkhand Education Project Council has submitted that similar issue has been decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 and analogous cases vide dated 16.12.2022 by dismissing the writ petitions and this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 and analogous cases.
4. Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised no objection to such submission and fairly submitted that the matter may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 and analogous cases.
5. This Court has gone through the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 and analogous cases and found that the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition observing therein that since the writ petitioners have accepted the offer of appointment, which has been made on contract on payment of honorarium and are being governed with their own rules carved out in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, once having accepted the terms of the contract and rendered their services, they cannot turn around and claim parity to get minimum of pay-scale. Since the writ petitioners are the 3 engagee on contract basis depending upon the contract and as such on that count also there cannot be direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise the same will amount to re-writing the contract, which is not permission in law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70. At paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or re-write the contract between the parties. Paragraph 11 is quoted hereunder :-
"11. In the circumstances of this case, our inquiry is limited to the question whether the contract was so constructed that loss was inherent and implicit in it; if so, it ought to be modified. Otherwise, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission that similar matter has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.315 of 2016 and analogous cases, the instant writ petition also stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-