Jharkhand High Court
Basant Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 22 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.884 of 2015
Basant Prasad ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department,
Telephone Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Director (Secondary Education),
Human Resources Development Department,
Telephone Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhan Division, Palamu
4. The District Education Officer, Palamu P.O-Palamu
P.S- Sadar District Palamu ..... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to SC-V
-------
18/ 22/02/2021 Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned AC to SC-V for the Respondents
State through V.C.
2. Order dated 08.09.2020 reads as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties
through V.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the instant application has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing of the report of the three man
committee constituted in light of the Apex Court
judgment so far it relates to the petitioner whereby,
the recognition of service of the petitioner has been
refused. He further submits that as per report, the
recognition of the petitioner's service was refused
for the sole reason that the petitioner was untrained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws
attention of this Court towards the judgment passed
in the case of Bal Mohan Prasad & Ors. Vs. State
of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.S No.921 of 2011 with
analogous cases) in which this Court has held in
Para-18 (i) & (v) as under:-
"18 .......................................
(i) The untrained teachers have to be
absorbed in the regular services though
initially in the untrained scale but with a
condition to complete their teacher's training
course/B.Ed. course within a stipulated time
period to be decided by the Govt. and on
successful completion of the said course they
may be granted the benefits of trained scale.
(v) The Alam Committee's report will not
come into the way of absorption of employees,
if such cases have been rejected by Alam
Committee on the principles contrary to the
directions of Hon'ble Patna High Court (FB)
passed in Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak
Sang (supra), confirmed by Hon'ble Apex
Court and against the principles as being laid
down by this Hon'ble in the paragraph - 17,
as also against the directions of the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court in
other writ petitions in individual cases.
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly admitted that against this order, an appeal has
already been preferred by the State which is still
pending.
4. In this view of the matter, learned counsel
for the State is directed to seek instruction about the
stand of the respondents and latest position of the
case.
6. Put up this case on 23.09.2020."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order a supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed by the respondent No.4 wherein at paragraph No.18 it has been
stated that the department has issued a letter for absorption of service of Smt.
Deomani conditionally subject to final result of L.P.A.
For better appreciation, paragraph 18 of the supplementary
counter affidavit dated 21.12.2020 is quoted herein below:
"18. That it is humbly stated and submitted
that in compliance to the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) No.5994 of
2013, the department has issued letter for
absorption of service of Smt. Deomani vide
Memo No.543 dated 12/03/2020 conditionally,
subject to the final result of LPA No.134 of
2020 filed before the Hon'ble High Court."
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner draws
attention of this Court towards the order dated 12.03.2020 issued by the
respondent authority in the case of Smt. Deomani and submits that even the
petitioner is entitled for the same and similar benefits subject to pendency of
the L.P.A. No.134 of 2020.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the case
may be disposed of by directing the respondent to consider the case of the
petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the averments made in the respective affidavits especially paragraph-
18 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that vide order dated
12.03.2020; the respondent authorities have absorbed one similarly situated
person, namely, Smt. Deomani, however, the said absorption is conditional
subject to the final result of L.P.A. No. 134 of 2020.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the instant writ application stands
disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to pass the same and
similar order of absorption in case of this petitioner which has been issued in
the case of similarly situated-Smt. Deomani.
Needless to say that such absorption will be subject to final
outcome of the case i.e. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. versus Smt. Deomani
being L.P.A. No.134 of 2020.
It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled for all
consequential benefits.
It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within
a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this
order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
