Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs James Surin on 15 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 119 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 1497 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 1498 of 2019
------
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human
Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.
2.The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.
3.The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Human
Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi -4, Jharkhand.
4.The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O
& P.S. - Simdega, Dist - Simdega.
5.The District Education Officer, District Collectoriate,
Simdega, P.O & P.S.- Simdega, Dist- Simdega.
..... Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/ Appellants
Versus
1.James Surin, S/o Late Junthan Surin, R/o Saldega
Kunj Nagar, Simdega, P.O - Simdega, P.S. - Simdega,
Dist. - Simdega, Pin-835223, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Petitioner/Respondent
2.The Principal, Plathpur High School, Koronjo, Simdega,
P.O., P.S. & Dist - Simdega, Jharkahnd.
... Respondent No. 6/Performa Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C. III
For the Respondents : ----
-------
Oral Judgment
Order No. 06 : Dated 15th March, 2021:
Matter has been done through video conferencing
and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio
and visual quality.
I.A. No. 1497 of 2019
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for
condoning the delay of 146 days, which has occurred in
preferring this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
5. Having regard to the averments made in this
application, we are of the view that the appellants were
prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal
within the period of limitation.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1497 of 2019 is allowed and delay
of 146 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No. 119 of 2019
7. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred
against the order/judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 5968 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge of
this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner
was held entitled to get salary admissible to untrained
teacher for the period in question. However, liberty was
granted to the respondents-State to initiate appropriate
proceeding by issuing fresh show cause, allegedly for
producing fake training certificate, and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law.
8. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be
enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are
as under:
The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of
Science Teacher vide appointment letter dated
30.11.1992, in pursuance to the advertisement floated by
Plathpur High School, Koronjo and accordingly, he joined
the said post on 01.12.1992.
The writ petitioner was appointed as untrained
teacher in the light of circular issued by the erstwhile
State of Bihar vide Memo No. 116 dated 05.03.1991,
wherein it was stated that for appointment to the post of
teacher, it is not mandatory to be a trained and after
appointment, training would be given by the State in
course of service.
Subsequently, the appointment of the writ
petitioner was ratified by the respondents-authorities and
he was allowed to discharge his duty as also salary was
paid up-to February, 2004, but, all of a sudden from
March, 2004, onwards his salary was stopped.
Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner submitted
repeated representations before the authorities concerned
for redressal of his grievances, however, to no effect,
which compelled the writ petitioner to approach this
Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
by filing writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 5968 of 2017,
inter alia, on the ground that the decision to withhold the
salary without issuance of any notice and show cause is
an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power of the
respondents-authorities.
According to the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner the action of the respondents-authorities is
contrary to the decision taken by the authorities itself,
who after being found the writ petitioner eligible to be
appointed on the post of Science teacher, had appointed
him in terms of the advertisement and after following the
rules for appointment. According to writ petitioner, even
though he was untrained but his name was
recommended for approval by the concerned authorities
but no order was passed in this regard and all of a
sudden his salary was stopped from March, 2004.
The State-respondents contested the case by filing
counter affidavit inter alia taking the ground that the writ
petitioner is not fit to hold the said post as he was having
no training certificate and when he was asked to produce
the training certificate, he submitted certificate of an
institution which is not recognized by the National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and subsequently
the said certificate was found to be fake, therefore,
authorities while taking decision to stop salary cannot be
said to have acted arbitrarily.
Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of parties, disposed of
the writ petition holding the writ petitioner entitled for
salary admissible to untrained teachers, however, granted
liberty to the respondents-authorities to initiate
appropriate proceeding by issuing fresh show cause
notice and if it is found that the writ petitioner has tried
to mislead the respondents-authorities on the basis of
said certificate, reasoned order in accordance with law be
passed within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of the order, the aforesaid
order is under challenge in the instant intra-court appeal.
9. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C. III appearing
for the appellants-State of Jharkhand has submitted that
the writ petitioner although was appointed as Science
Teacher but subsequently, the training certificate
submitted by the writ petitioner was found to be fake,
therefore, the writ petitioner is not fit to hold the said
post. She further submits that the learned Single Judge,
has not appreciated the conduct of the writ petitioner and
without appreciating this aspect of the matter has
directed to disburse the salary, which is not at all proper
and, therefore, she prays to interfere with the impugned
order.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-
State, perused the materials available on record as also
the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
The fact, which is not in dispute in the instant case
is that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of
Science Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement
floated by the respondents-authorities and thereafter he
started discharging his duties and salary was also paid to
him up-to February, 2004.
However, salary was withheld from the month of
March, 2004 on the ground of having no training
certificate and subsequently, whatever training certificate
produced by the writ petitioner was found to be fake.
The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration
these facts more particularly the fact that the writ
petitioner was allowed to discharge the duty since his
joining on 01.12.1992 and also salary was paid up-to
February, 2004, held the writ petitioner entitled for salary
from March, 2004 onwards, however, liberty was granted
to the respondents-authorities to conduct an enquiry with
respect to submission of fake certificate and pass
reasoned order in accordance with law.
11. In the aforesaid factual background, the question
which is to be answered by this Court is as to:
"Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case,
the writ petitioner is entitled for the salary for the
period, for which he has been allowed to work?
It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was
appointed after following due procedure and thereafter he
joined to the post of Science Teacher in the said school on
01.12.1992 and continuously discharged his duties and
salary was also regularly paid up-to February, 2004 i.e.
for 12 years and thereafter, all of a sudden since March,
2004, his salary was stopped.
It appears that even though liberty was granted by
the writ Court to conduct enquiry with respect to
genuineness of the training certificate allegedly submitted
by the writ petitioner, but as yet even though order
having been passed by the writ Court to that effect way
back on 16.08.2018 no proceeding has been initiated
rather the writ petitioner has been allowed to continue
his service, as has been admitted by learned counsel for
the respondents-State during course of argument.
Therefore, salary for the period for which the writ
petitioner has been allowed to discharge his duty cannot
be withheld in the garb of producing the alleged fake
certificate for the reason that as yet the respondents-
authorities have not come to a conclusive finding by
conducting a full-fledged enquiry, by affording sufficient
opportunity to the writ petitioner about the genuineness
of the training certificate.
The learned Single Judge taking into consideration
these aspects of the matter directed to disburse the salary
for the period the writ petitioner has discharged his
duties, which cannot be said to be improper warranting
interference by this Court, more particularly for the
reason that the learned Single Judge, since has already
granted liberty to the appellants-State to consider the
veracity of the said training certificate by passing a
reasoned order to that effect.
12. Therefore, according to our considered view, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, pertaining to
disbursement of salary, in the light of facts and
discussions made herein above, cannot be faulted with.
The issue framed by this Court is accordingly
answered.
13. Accordingly, we refrain ourselves from interfering
with the impugned order.
14. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly
dismissed.
15. Consequent upon the dismissal of the instant intra-
court appeal, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.
1498 of 2019 stand disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/ -
A.F.R.
