Jharkhand High Court
Balbir Kaur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 July, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 4309 of 2019
Balbir Kaur --- --- Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand
3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department
4. District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
5. Khalsa Middle School though its Secretary --- --- Respondent (s)
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner (s): M/s Amit Kr. Das, Siddhanth Jain, Advocates For the Resp.-State: M/s Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C-III Ashwini Bhushan, A.C to Sr. S.C.-III For the Resp. No. 5: Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate
---
12 / 16.07.2024 Petitioner Balbir Kaur has fled this writ application for quashing of letter no. 759 dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-7 to this writ application), issued by the Respondent No. 2-Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and wherein, the proposal for the grant of approval of appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. It has further been prayed to direct the Respondent authorities to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner against the vacant sanctioned post as the petitioner fulfils the minimum requisite eligibility criteria prescribed by the State Government.
2. Case of the petitioner is that the post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant in Khalsa Middle School, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur in the year 2011. Accordingly, recruitment process was initiated by the Management of the school which was published in the newspaper on 05.03.2012. The petitioner who was possessing minimum eligibility criteria applied for the post and interview letter was issued vide letter no. 19.04.2012. The petitioner participated in the interview and the Management of Khalsa Middle School, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 25.04.2012. Thereafter, petitioner joined her duty on 27.04.2012, which was duly accepted by the headmaster of the school. Subsequently, matter was referred to the District Superintendent of Education for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. However, the District Superintendent of Education after verification of the entire records, approved the appointment of two other teachers namely, Snehlata Barla and Smt. Jaspal Kaur and kept the 2. matter relating to grant of approval of appointment of the petitioner pending. Finally, vide letter no. 759 dated 05.03.2016 Respondent No. 4 informed the Management of the school that her appointment cannot be approved as she has crossed the maximum age for appointment. At the time of her appointment, petitioner had just crossed the age of 42 years.
3. Respondent No. 5 has filed counter affidavit and had annexed the notification dated 14.08.2007 bearing Memo No. 1691 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand in which the requisite age for appointment of a lady of general category has been prescribed as 43 years. Reliance has been placed upon a decision passed by the learned Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 48 of 2020 vide order dated 02.12.2022 and another decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2022 in L.P.A. No. 195 of 2018 and analogous matters, wherein this issue has been laid to rest and it has been held hat the maximum age limit for appointment of a lady under general category in a minority school shall be 43 years.
4. In view of the notification dated 1691 dated 14.08.2007 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi which has been annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 and in light of the decisions passed by this court, the letter no. 759 dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-7 to this writ application), issued by the Respondent No. 2-Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi denying approval of the appointment of the petitioner is quashed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue fresh direction in light of the notification of the State Government on this point and also in light of decisions of this court.
5. This writ application is allowed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded