Jharkhand High Court
Md. Daud Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 988 of 2020
1. Md. Daud Ansari, aged about 43 years, son of late Md. Gulshan
Ansari, Resident of Village - Bhojudih, P.S. - Maharaj Ganj, P.S.
- Tundi, District - Dhanbad
2. Sirajuddin Ansari, Aged about 51 years, Son of Late Md. Usman
Ansari, Resident of Village & P.O. - Benagoria, P.S. Nirsha,
District - Dhanbad
3. Ushan Kumari, Aged about 35 years, Wife of Suman Kumar
Nayak, Resident of Village - NayaTand, P.O. - GosiaBaliya, P.S.
- Barkgaon, District - Hazaribagh
4. Md. Lokman Sheikh, Aged about 32 years, son of Late Md. Iliyas
Sheikh, Resident of Village - Ahitikar (Arhai Tikar), P.O. - Bara
Dighi, P.S. - Barharwa, District - Sahibganj
5. Roshan Bhuiya, Aged about 40 years, son of Karoo Bhuiya,
Resident of Village - Bhurkunda, P.O. - Pitiz, P.S. - Itkhori,
District- Chatra ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagannathpur, District - Ranchi
3. Director, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagannathpur, District - Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. and District Jmatara
5. District Superintendent of Education, Jamtra, P.O., P.S. and
District - Jamtara ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines III
---
06/24.08.2022 Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"For quashing (Annexure - 4) the order no.1082, 1084, 1080,
1081 and 1083 all dated 16.11.2019 in terms of which the petitioners
have been terminated from their service as Inter Trained Teachers, on
the ground that the petitioners have enhanced their education
qualification as a regular students while petitioners were working as
para teachers in their earlier appointments."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
orders have been passed solely on the ground that the petitioners had
not taken due permission for enhancement of their educational
qualification while working as para teacher. Learned counsel submits
that a show cause was issued to all the petitioners vide Letter No.668
dated 16.07.2019 which was a common show cause addressed to six
persons and out of them five are the petitioners before this Court. He
submits that pursuant to the show cause issued, all the petitioners had
filed their show cause reply. However, from perusal of the writ
petition, the show cause reply of only petitioner no.1 has been
annexed. Learned counsel submits that a specific statement has been
made in the writ petition stating that all the petitioners had filed their
respective show cause reply. He submits that from perusal of the show
cause reply filed by the petitioner no.1 annexed along with the writ
petition as Annexure - 3, it was clearly brought to the notice of the
authority that due permission was granted by Gram Shiksha Samiti.
He further submits that due permission for enhancing educational
qualification granted by Gram Shiksha Samiti with regard to each of
the petitioners is in the record of this case.
5. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the order
passed by this Court on 26.07.2022 wherein, the respondents were
directed to file a supplementary counter-affidavit with particular
reference to the stand taken by the petitioners that even the Village
Education Committee (Gram Shiksha Samiti) is competent authority
for granting due permission for undertaking higher education, an
affidavit dated 08.08.2022 has been filed and specific averment has
been made in para 6 that the Village Education Committee is
competent authority for engaging / appointing para teacher and hence
the appointing authority itself i.e., the Village Education Committee is
competent authority for granting permission for undertaking higher
education / enhancement of qualification of the para teachers
appointed by it. Learned counsel submits that the entire basis of
passing the impugned orders is that due permission was not taken and
as the petitioners were duly permitted by Village Education
Committee, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
judgments passed by this Court in L.P.A No.385 of 2019 and W.P.(S)
No.2642 of 2018 and W.P.(S). No.275 of 2017. A copy of the
judgment passed in W.P.(S). No.275 of 2017 has been annexed as
Annexure - 10 to the present writ petition. Learned counsel submits
that in the said judgments, specific plea was taken with regard to the
power of Block Education Extension Officer to grant permission for
additional qualification.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that in view of the affidavit dated 08.08.2022, it is not in dispute that
Village Education Committee is competent authority to grant the
necessary permission for undertaking higher education / enhancement
of qualification of the para teachers appointed by it. He further
submits that the matter may be remitted to respondent no.5, who may
look into the records and pass appropriate order in accordance with
law. He also submits that an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
can also be granted.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is the specific
case of the petitioners that they were granted due permission by
Village Education Committee for continuing their further education /
undertaking higher education / enhancement of qualification and as
per the affidavit dated 08.08.2022, the Village Education Committee
was the competent authority to grant such permission. It has been
specifically stated by the petitioners in their writ petition that pursuant
to the show cause dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure - 2), they had filed
their reply before the authority bringing to the notice of the said
authority that they were duly granted permission from Village
Education Committee. However, only one such show cause reply has
been annexed along with the writ petition and averment has been
made that all the petitioners filed similar replies. From perusal of the
impugned orders all dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure - 4 series ) nothing
has been mentioned about the show cause replies filed by the
petitioners and accordingly their show cause replies have not been
considered.
8. Considering the materials which have been filed along with the
writ petition and the specific averment of the petitioners that they were
granted permission by Village Education Committee to pursue their
higher education, the impugned orders which do not reflect
consideration of the show cause reply by the petitioners, cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order being letter nos.1082, 1084,
1080 1081 and 1083 all dated 16.11.2019 are set aside and the matter
is remitted back to the respondent no.5 to pass fresh order in
accordance with law taking into consideration the show cause reply
already filed by the petitioners and also after verifying the records of
the Village Education Committee with regard to the grant of
permission to the petitioners for pursuing their higher education. The
petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no.5 on
26.09.2022 along with the writ records, a copy of this order and the
aforesaid judgements relied upon by the petitioners. Upon their
appearance, the respondent no.5 is directed to grant an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative and pass
appropriate reasoned order after verifying the records within a period
of one month from 26.09.2022. The reasoned order should be
communicated to each of the petitioners through speed post at the
address which may be provided by them in their respective
representations.
10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
