JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Yashvardhan, Mr. Sreenu Garapati and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent- State as well as Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent-JEPC

2. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. In W.P.(S) No.5870 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for grant of revised pay scale w.e.f. 07.09.2012 in view of memo no.1836 dated 07.09.2012 and in W.P.(S) No.2430 of 2019, the petitioner has challenged the termination order. By way of earlier order, both the writ petitions were heard together that is why today argument has been advanced in both the writ petitions and have been heard on merit.

4. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset pointed out that 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 made education a fundamental right for children under Article 21A of Constitution of India. He submits that National Policy of Education has been reiterated in the National Policy of Education in the year 1986. Pursuant thereto, Government of India in corroboration with State Government came out with the scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Jharkhand Education Council is the implementing agency for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. So far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, under the Sarva Shikash Abhiyan there is national programme known as National Programme for education of girls at elementary level that is made for education of under privileged/disadvantage girls from Class I to VIII. Under the aforesaid programme, District Gender Coordinator are required to be appointed. The Jharkhand Education Project Council through letter no.15.03.2005 instructed the District Collector, Bokaro to initiate the process for appointment of District Gender Coordinator and appoint them. The State Project Director informed all the concerned officials of the JEPC at the District level to conclude the appointment process of District Gender Coordinator by 15.05.2005. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was appointed on the said post by appointment letter dated 01.02.2009. The petitioner was appointed as District Gender Coordinator for the last two years and on contractual basis. The petitioner’s services has been terminated by order dated 11.04.2018. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(S) No.2430 of 2018.

5. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that language of the impugned order is stigmatic in nature. He submits that there is an allegation of fraudulently obtaining appointment and that is why it is stigmatic and in that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. Mr. Sahay took the Court to the impugned order repeatedly and argued that in the impugned order it has been stated that in the year 2013-14, the said scheme was already concluded, however, the petitioner was allowed to work till impugned order has been passed which shows that there is no concealment on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Sahay relied on the fundamentals of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Mr. Sahay further relied in the case of Deoghar Versus Miss Manju Modak & Others reported in (2006) 2 JLJR (HC) particularly para 5 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

“In our view, in any case where it appears to the Court that the order is violative of the principles of natural justice enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution then such order of the authority can be annulled.”

6. He further relied in the case of Munni Kumari Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2014(3) AJR 331 He also relied in the case of Hemanti Topno Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in