Jharkhand High Court
Md. Esahaque vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3231 of 2011
--------
Md. Esahaque ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand
3. Project Director, Serva Shiksha Abhiyan, Doranda, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, District Sahibganj
5. District Superintendent of Education-District Programme
Officer, Sahibganj,
6. Block Education Extension Officer, Rajmahal, District
Sahibganj
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahto, Advocate
---------
03/18.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioner for a direction upon the concerned respondents
to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of
Para-Teacher in Government Upgraded Block School, Daras
Tola, Village-Harmalli, Jamnagar East Panchayat, Rajmahal
Block, Dist.-Sahibganj.
3. Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner draws attention of this court towards the counter
affidavit filed by Respondent No.4 and 5 and submits that
name of the petitioner along with one Md. Shamim Akhtar
was selected by the Village Education Committee in its
General meeting and thereafter names were sent to the Block
Education Committee. However, the said Committee found
that the petitioner has the degree of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar,
which is not recognized by the Government so they returned
the recommendation.
Mr. Singh contended that his candidature was
rejected only on the ground that the degree of the Hindi
Vidyapith, Deoghar was not recognized by the Government;
however, the same issue has already been decided by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11255 of 2016; as
such, the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the
concerned respondent for consideration of his case for the
post of Para Teacher.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits
that the appointment of other candidate has already been
made who has not been made party in this case. He further
submits that the above referred judgment came in the year
2019; as such, the same is not applicable in this case.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, without going into the merits of the case, the
petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned
respondents along with supporting documents raising his
grievance within a period of three months from today.
If any such representation is filed before the
Respondent No.4 within the aforesaid stipulated period, the
same shall be disposed of by Respondent No.4 in consultation
with Respondent No.5 and decide the claim of the petitioner
in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government
notifications and also in the light of judgment passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 11255 of 2016 within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of such representation.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
