Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Upendra Singh S/o Late Lakhpat Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 330 of 2022
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Limitation Act - Condoning delay - Section 5 - [Clause 10 of the Letters Patent] - [W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019] - [Abhilasha Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P. (S) No. 7220 of 2011 dated 13.03.2014] - The court condoned the delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The instant appeal was directed against the order/judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019 by which the writ petition has been dismissed by refusing to interfere with the office order no. 868 dated 19.03.2019 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand by which the decision regarding the absorption of the writ petitioners along with the consequential benefits, has been decided against the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as teachers in 1984, were untrained graduates, and sought payment of salary. Their writ petition was dismissed, and they appealed based on the rejection of their claim for absorption despite being untrained graduates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were untrained graduates at the time of appointment, and the rejection of their claim for absorption was based on the recommendation of the Alam Committee report, which they did not object to. The court also noted that the basic educational qualification for induction in service was a trained graduate.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioners' claim for absorption despite being untrained graduates and the alleged hostile discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioners' claim for absorption was based on the recommendation of the Alam Committee report, and the basic educational qualification for induction in service was a trained graduate. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed qualifications to avoid violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the rejection of the petitioners' claim for absorption did not suffer from any error.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 7098 of 2023
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 90 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 7098 of 2023 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No. 330 of 2022
5. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019 by which the writ petition has been dismissed by refusing to interfere with the office order no. 868 dated 19.03.2019 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand by which the decision regarding the absorption of the writ petitioners along with the consequential benefits, has been decided against the appellants, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.
6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under:
(ii) The petitioner no. 2 was duly appointed as teacher in Project Girls-High School, Markachoo, Koderma vide appointment letter dated 07.12.1984 duly issued by the then Secretary of school management namely Chotu Singh and since the date of his appointment, he has been working at Project Girls High School, Markachoo, Koderma. The name of the petitioner no. 2 also appears in the report of Three Men Committee among the list of teachers working in the School.
(iii) Inspite of their appointment and working since the year 1984 & 1985, the petitioners were not paid salary for which they met the concerned authorities several times, but no heed was paid to their requests for the payment of his current as well as due arrear salary since other similarly situated teachers have been paid their salaries by them.
(iv) Since nothing was done by the respondents authorities, then, having no option, the petitioners preferred writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 1198/2015 before the High Court for the payment of current as well as due arrear salary. The instant writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court on 01.07.2017 whereby and whereunder it was directed to the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The petitioners submitted their representation alongwith copy of the order dated 01.07.2017 vide speed post dated 07.09.2017 before the District Education Officer, Koderma. When no order was passed by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 01.07.2017 the petitioners again having no option, preferred contempt case bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 36/ 2018 before the High Court.
(vi) The respondent authorities submitted their reply rejecting the claims of the petitioners vide office order no. 868 dated 19.03.2019 duly issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi rejecting the claim of the petitioner no. 1 & 2 on the ground of non-fulfilling the criteria of teacher training fixed by departmental resolution no. 1272 dated 25.04.2018 and also on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 to 3 had not worked in the school ever, with all malafide intention, ignoring the appointment lett
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications for induction in service to avoid violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
Repeated adjudication of issues pertaining to similarly situated persons on the ground that there are new grounds for denying the relief is not permissible, as it would create two different sub-claus....
The court established that the State has the authority to set educational qualifications for teachers and that the writ court cannot alter policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or un....
Service Matter1 - Under Section 106 of the Schedule “F”, it is nowhere provided that if the appointment of Teacher is made in Non Granted School, then Teacher cannot be given an appointment in the gr....
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
