Jharkhand High Court
Pyari Kundulna Daughter Of Nelson ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 2 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6203 of 2016
----
Pyari Kundulna daughter of Nelson Kandulna, resident of Village Robga,
PO Surwajharia, PS Bansjore, District Simdega.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary / Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having Office at MDI Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, School Education
and Literacy Department, Office at New Cooperative Building, Shyamali
Colony, Doranda, Ranchi.
3. District Superintendent of Education, Simdega.
4. Block Education Extension Officer, Bansjore, Office at PO PS Bansjore,
District Simdega.
5. The Chairman/President, Village Education Committee, Upgraded
Middle School, Robga, PO Surwajharia, PS Bansjore, District Simdega.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Sneha Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Shaurya, AC to SC II
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
----
5/ 02.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents as also the counsel appearing for
Jharkhand Education Project Council.
2. Petitioner has challenged Annexure 4, which is at page 22 of the
writ petition, which is an order contained in letter No.104 dated 10.10.2015,
whereby the services of the petitioner as Para-teacher has been terminated.
The termination is on the ground that the petitioner was directed to obtain
Intermediate Degree by June, 2008, which the petitioner, admittedly, failed to
obtain and rather obtained the same in the month of August, 2010.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Para-teacher on 23.10.2003. At
that point of time, petitioner was Matriculate, which was prescribed by the
State Government. Under notification dated 04.09.2001 issued by the National
Council of Technical Education, minimum educational qualification for
appointment of Teacher was fixed as Intermediate (trained).
5. On 01.04.2010, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 came into force, in terms thereof the teachers who did not
possess the minimum educational qualification at the time of their appointment
were required to attain such qualification within 5 years. Now it is stated that
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Second Amendment)
Rules, 2017 has come into force with effect from 01.04.2015 by which a
proviso has been inserted in sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It reads : "provided
further that every teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015 who
does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-
section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of
4 years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017".
6. Stand taken by the respondents is that in terms of Notification
dated 04.09.2001 of the National Council for Technical Education, the
teachers who did not possess the qualification of Intermediate were issued
show-cause notices (paragraph 13) and they were offered opportunity to
acquire requisite educational qualification in terms of the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
7. The petitioner was directed to obtain necessary qualification by
June, 2008. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to obtain the educational
qualification by June, 2008. Admittedly, she obtained Sahitya Bhushan from
Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in August, 2010.
8. Now, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3115 of 2015
has held that a Degree obtained from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar up to 26th
June, 2015 is valid. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained the degree prior to
June, 2015. Further, in a similar case, one Mangra Topno had approached this
Court by filing W.P.(S) No.6600 of 2016. Mangra Topno had also obtained
degree after June 2008. In the aforesaid case, this Court quashed the
termination order of Mangra Topno and allowed the writ petition and granted
benefit of continuity in service and also directed to pay salary for the period he
has actually worked. Aforesaid order was accepted by the respondents.
Similarly, one Birsa Singh had also approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4962
of 2016, which was also allowed in terms of W.P.(S) No.6600 of 2016.
9. Case of the petitioner stands on the similar footing. Thus,
considering both these two orders/judgments passed in W.P.(S) No.6600 of
2016 and W.P.(S) No.4962 of 2016, I am inclined to allow this writ petition.
Thus, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P.(S)
No.4962 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.6600 of 2016.
10. Impugned order as contained in Letter No.104 dated 10.10.2015,
is hereby quashed. This writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be
granted benefit of continuity in service and paid salary for the period she has
actually worked.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
