Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kumar Pramanik vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4080 of 2012
--------
1. Ram Kumar Pramanik
2. Surendra Besra
3. Madhu Sudan Mahato
4. Ahlad Mahato
5. Laxmi Sagar Majhi
6. Mahendra Nath Laya
7. Debashish Mahanty ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum
3. District Programme Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur, East
Singbhum
5. Block Education Extension Officer, Patamda, Jamshedpur
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Bandana Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
---------
06/15.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioners praying for a direction upon the
respondent authorities to send the petitioners for
induction training and to regularize their services.
3. The petitioners has earlier moved before this
court in W.P.(S) No. 5465 of 2011 which was disposed of
with a direction to pursue the representation which was
filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the impugned order
has been passed which clearly states that to be appointed
as Para Teacher the candidate must be trained. Further, it
has also been stated that a Para Teacher has to get
induction training and only then they can be appointed
and since the petitioners were untrained; in view of
circular dated 23.01.2007, the Induction Training was
necessary which the petitioners did not possess; as such
their representation was rejected.
4. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that Right to Education Act, 2009
will not come into the way of these petitioners as the said
Act is prospective in nature. He further submits that
though Induction Training was compulsory for
appointment as Para Teachers but that was not the duty
of the petitioners. He further submits that his name was
forwarded by the Block Education Committee and
thereafter, they were appointed, as such they were entitled
for honorarium.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case
wherein it has been specifically stated at Paragraph 7 that
selection of these petitioners was never approved by any
competent authority nor the selection was made in
accordance with the norms to appoint of Para Teacher. It
is further stated at Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit
that recommendation of the Block Education Committee
was never made. As a matter of fact, only three members
have signed the recommendation which does not fulfill the
norms of selection as the said committee has nine
members as stated in Resolution No. 1018 dated
04.08.2002 of Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, as such, the recommendation
cannot be considered legal in the light of resolution.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the relevant documents annexed
with the respective affidavits and the averments made
therein it appears that the petitioners are not trained
teachers which is a condition precedent to become a Para
Teacher in view of Circular dated 23.01.2007 wherein it
has been specifically stated that before joining as Para
Teacher the candidate has to go for induction training.
In the case of Usha Kumari & Ors. vs. State
of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 151 of 2018), it has
been held by the Division Bench of this Court at
Paragraph 13, 14 and 15 as under:
"13. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is
of the considered view that the appellants have
joined the respective schools in violation of the
Circular dated 02.01.2007 and accordingly it
cannot be said that the appellants have duly
given their joining in the respective schools and
the entire selection process of the appellants was
complete prior to 31.03.2010 and accordingly they
have any right, much less any accrued right, to
continue and receive salary as prayed for in this
writ petition.
14. Admittedly, after coming into force of the
aforesaid Act of 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 no
teacher, who is not trained as per the requirement
of the said Act, can be appointed.
15. In such circumstances, even if the
petitioners have continued to work after
31.03.2010, they have done so at their own peril
and not directions can be issued by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
make payment of salary/honorarium to the
petitioners as prayed for in the instant writ
petition."
After goings through the aforesaid judgment, it
is clear that the Division Bench of this court has
discussed Circular dated 02.01.2007 and held that any
appointment in violation of circular dated 02.01.2007
cannot be said to be a valid appointment.
The Division Bench has further held that in
absence of completion of legal requirement of appointment
of Para Teachers no sanctity can be attached to their
selection. Even the selection by village level committee;
right did not accrue to the petitioner to be appointed.
7. In view of the aforesaid finding and also in view
of the circular dated 02.01.2007 it is clear that any person
who is to be appointed as Para Teacher has to go for an
Induction Training before he or she joins school and
merely selection and recommendation by Village Level
Committee did not give any right to be appointed.
In the instant case, the petitioners are not
trained and never went for induction training and
admittedly no legal requirement for appointment was
followed as such no relief can be granted to these
petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
