Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Article 51A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sur Singh Hasda vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 July, 2011
20. Before parting with, we would like to reiterate what
has been held by the learned Single Judge in the order
dated 14.07.2011 delivered in W.P.(S) No. 2102 of 2008
(Sur Singh Hasda Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) that
directive principles enshrined in Article 41 read with
Article 46 of the Constitution of India providing for
promotion of education and economic interest of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other weaker sections with
fundamental duties as prescribed under Article 51A are
required to be obeyed by the State of Jharkhand in view of
very special reason that Jharkhand being the State of the
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes and also weaker sections of the
public of all caste and the Jharkhand State has been
created for improvement of these people primarily. The
Jharkhand is known by its different languages which are
used by the local persons to a great extent and it may be
true that even some of such persons may not be knowing
even other languages. Not only these languages i.e. 'Ho'
and 'Santhali' but other languages are also rich languages
and their text books are also being published by the State
-20-
Government. Then in that situation, not making provision
for providing teachers to educate these subjects and that
too after almost 12 years of creation of the State of
Jharkhand is a very serious matter which requires serious
consideration by the State Government. The State should
have learnt lessons from the various judgements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which has emphasized for only
trained teachers and not for untrained teachers. Several
phased schemes were provided so that no untrained
teachers should even continue in service, if appointed. The
teachers can be given appointment without training but
they should take the training after obtaining the
appointment and in the Rules of 2002 also, there is specific
provision under proviso of Rule 4. The fact, as we have
already noticed, that there is not a single institute of
teachers' training for 'Ho' and 'Santhali' languages and if,
such institute is not in the State of Jharkhand, there cannot
be any reason for it being in any of the other State. At this
juncture, it would be relevant to mention here that we are
dealing with the subject covering the children and that too,
to the level of primary education. An Act was enacted i.e.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education,
2009 and Section 8 has cast duty upon the State
Government to provide free and compulsory elementary
education to every child and it is the duty of the State
Government under Section 8(B) to provide infrastructure
including school building, teaching staff and learning
-21-
equipments and Clause J under Section 8 further provides
the duty of the State Government to impart training to the
teachers by providing full facility to such teachers. So far
as these two languages are concerned, we may observe
here that this task can be undertaken only by the State
Government because of the reason that for these regional
languages, new business in education trend will not attract
new business persons who are doing business in the field of
education as it will not be lucrative for them to their
interest.
Kiran Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011
7. Except the difference in language i.e., in those
matters language under consideration was 'Ho' and in
subsequently delivered judgement (W.P.(S) No. 4607 of
2011) deciding several connected writ petitions, subject is
-9-
'Santhali' there is no difference as under same
advertisement and under same rules, the candidates who
were students of 'Santhali' language, approached this
Court to seek same relief which has been granted to the
candidates of 'Ho' language by three judgements dated
14.07.2011 in a bunch of writ petitions in three sets. Some
of these petitioners who were students of 'Ho' language,
also preferred writ petitions which were also dismissed by
the learned Single Judge along with W.P.(S) No. 4607 of
2011 titled as Kiran Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Others vide said common judgement dated 14.11.2011.
Before the learned Single Judge, the earlier three
judgements were also placed but learned Single Judge
observed that above judgements are based on mistake of
facts and took just contrary view to the view taken by the
learned Single Judges in earlier writ petitions. Therefore,
the State is aggrieved against the earlier orders dated
14.07.2011 referred above whereas the private parties are
aggrieved against the subsequent judgement dated
14.11.2011 hence, these two sets of appeals challenging
the orders dated 14.07.2011 and order dated 14.11.2011
passed by different Benches taking different views, which
are deciding by the common order.
Seema Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 June, 2011
Therefore, on this count of
fact that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
delivered in the case of Seema Kumari & others (Supra)
was not brought to the knowledge of the learned Single
Judges and the judgement delivered on 14.07.2011 runs
contrary to the ratio of the decision given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Seema Kumari & Others
(Supra), therefore, on this count also, the judgements
rendered on 14.07.2011 allowing the writ petitions of the
candidates is per incuriam.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 46 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kunti Birua vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 July, 2011
Another bunch of writ petitions
were decided along with W.P.(S) No. 4322 of 2010 in the
case of Kunti Birua Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others and
third set of writ petitions were decided by another Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5090 of 2008 and
connected writ petitions having title Majhi Jonko Vs. State
of Jharkhand & others. These three sets of judgements
were passed for the candidates who claimed that they have
been selected in due process of selection as teacher for
'Ho' language. The number of these candidates were 187
who have not been offered appointment even after
selection.