Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Raw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 251 of 2019
------
Mahendra Raw, resident of village Sukhjora, P.O. Sabaijore, P.S. Sarath,
District Deoghar (Jharkhand) ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.
Dumka, District Dumka.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District
Deoghar.
4. Block Development Officer, Sarath, P.O. & P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar
(Jharkhand) ..... ..... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Divya, AC to SC-III
------
07/09.02.2023: The petitioner is discharging his duty continuously since 1993 in
the office of the Block Development Officer, Sarath, thus prays for
regularization after setting aside the order dated 15.06.2017, by which claim
of the petitioner was rejected.
2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ
petition vide WP(S) No. 2127 of 2011 praying for regularization but his case
was not considered in terms of the scheme formulated by the State
Government pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi &
Ors." reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The writ application was thus disposed of
vide order dated 15.06.2016 with a direction to the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was considered and
vide impugned order dated 15.06.2017 as contained in memo No. 185, the
committee rejected the claim of the petitioner citing one of the grounds that
the matriculation certificate of the petitioner is from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar
thus his case cannot be considered. According to them, as per the
Government resolution, the degree/ certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapith,
Deoghar is invalid.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that at paragraph No.5 of the writ application, it has been stated that the
petitioner has passed matriculation from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the
year 2003. Thus, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of "Vijoy Kumar v. State of Jharkhand &
Ors. and analogous cases" passed in WP(C) No. 3115 of 2015 the
degree/ certificate of the petitioner is a valid document. The ground for
rejection thus is non est in the eyes of law.
4. Admittedly, the State came up with a circular to regularize the
services of daily wage employees, who were working for at least 10 years
up to 10.04.2016. This scheme was formulated in terms of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Secretary, State of
Karnataka (supra). The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(S) No.
2127 of 2011 which was disposed of directing the respondents to take a
decision. Thereafter, the impugned decision was taken, rejecting the claim of
the petitioner. One of the grounds is that the certificate/ degree obtained by
the petitioner from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar is invalid in view of the circular
of the Government.
5. The issue, in respect of certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapith,
now has been set at rest by this Court in the case of "Vijoy Kumar" (supra).
In paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court has held that the degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar are
valid up to 26.02.2015. As per the said paragraph, a person will not get
benefit of the said degree, if it is issued after 26.02.2015.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner's certificate/ degree is of the
year 2003. Thus, the case of the petitioner is covered by the observations
made in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment. As per paragraph No. 23 of the
aforesaid judgment, the certificate/ degree of the petitioner is valid and
recognition of the same has to be given by the respondent-State. Thus, the
impugned order dated 15.06.2017 as contained in memo No. 185 is hereby
set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents to decide the case of
the petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of "Vijoy Kumar" (supra) within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Madhav/-
