IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner who has taken due permission for pursuing additional education while working and has not received any benefits during that period should not be denied appointment based on pursuing the additional education.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order of cancellation of her appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Graduated Trained Language Para Teacher on 23.05.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2013, an advertisement was floated for appointment of 302 Assistant Teachers. Since the petitioner was eligible for said post, she applied to the same having requisite qualification. The petitioner had also cleared Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council for Class 1 to 5 and 6 to 8. In the process of selection, petitioner appeared and was declared fit and suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment. Thereafter, petitioner was waiting for formal letter of appointment but the same was denied vide order dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure-3).

Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that the grounds taken by the respondents in the impugned order as well as in the counter-affidavit is contrary to their own document which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ petition i.e. recommendation dated 29.06.2016. Learned counsel submits that after taking due permission from the competent authority, the petitioner pursued her B.Ed. Course and completed the same successfully. Learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in pursuing the said Course which is revealed from the order passed by the District Education Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Koderma. Learned counsel submits that in most mechanical manner, the impugned order has been issued which is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, it should be rejected and turned down.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State justified the impugned order and submits that since petitioner pursued her B.Ed. Course while working as Para Teacher, nobody can be permitted to pursue and attend the Classes for obtaining the said Degree, when he/ she is working as Para Teacher in different Institution. Learned counsel submits that it appears that petitioner was appointed as Para Teacher in Domchanch and was pursuing her B.Ed. Course from Jhumri Tilaiya and as such, rightly it has been dismissed and her candidature/ appointment has been cancelled.

6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law, for the following facts and reasons :

(I) From perusal of letter dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) it appears that the District Establishment Committee while considering while considering letter dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), has come-out with a finding/observation that petitioner has taken due permission from the concerned authority for pursuing her B.Ed. Course and there is nothing wrong with it and as such, her candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher ought to have been recommended.

(II) From perusal of letter dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), it appears that the petitioner has taken due permission for pursuing her B.Ed. Course and she has not taken any benefits/honorarium/ salary of the period in which she was pursuing her B.Ed. Course.

(III) From the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee itself it appears that the case of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 being not tenable in the eyes of law, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher