Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 16 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.Rev. No. 224 of 2017
----
Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Dr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
----
11/16.02.2024 Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as Mr.(Dr.)
S.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition for setting aside the
order dated 17.01.2017 passed by leraned S.D.J.M., Dumka in connection
with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.29 of 2011, G.R. No.225 of 2011, T.R.
No.1032 of 2015, registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and
120B, 34 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.
3. Mr. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of
para teacher on the basis of matriculation passed certificate and she was
selected by Aam Sabha dated 8.11.2003 by Village Education Committee.
He submits that the petitioner passed matriculation examination in the
year 1985 from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. She has taken
admission in correspondence court of BPP from IGNOU and also passed
the same in 2005 which is equivalent to Intermediate. He submits that
later on Sahitya Bhushan certificate was also produced by the petitioner
which meant to passing of intermediate examination and on verification
it was found that the same was not issued by the concerned institution.
He submits that the matriculation certificate was correct one and on the
basis of that the petitioner was selected and it is immaterial that Sahitya
Bhushan certificate was issued by the concerned institution or not. He
further submits that in identical situation this Court has exercised its
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C in case of Deep Mala Yadav v. The
State of Jharkhand [Cr.M.P. No.414 of 2014] dated 24.04.2023
and in the case of Sushma Kumari v. The State of Jharkhand [Cr.
M.P. No.1659 of 2013] dated 23.09.2013. Relying on these two
judgments, he submits that these petitioners who were also named in
the FIR and their case have been quashed and in view of that, the
petitioner is fit to be discharged and the learned court has not been
pleased to discharge the petitioner which is not in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the
prayer on the ground that at the time of filing of Sahitya Bhushan
certificate on verification it was informed that the said certificate itself
was not issued by the concerned institution by letter no.607 of 2009
contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit on behalf of the
O.P.No.2. He submits that the case of the present petitioner as well as
those petitioners whose cases are quashed by this Court are on different
footing as in their case they have submitted the certificate as it is and on
verification it was found to be true to that effect.
5. It is admitted position that the petitioner and the two
persons whose case has been quashed by this Court have been
appointed on the post of para teacher. In the case of two persons supra,
the certificate found to be correct and on the basis of that they have
been appointed as para teacher and so far Intermediate Council
certificate is concerned of those petitioners they have filed it and by the
said certificate issued to the effect that they have failed and on
verification the said institution has also intimated the same thing about
the failure. Thus, the certificate received by them was filed as it is. So far
the case of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner was said to be
passed in matriculation, however, she has also filed intermediate
certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar as informed on
verification by the concerned authority that so far the other cases are
concerned it was issued by the institution, however, the case of the
petitioner and Dilip Kumar, the institution has denied of issuing of that
certificate from that institution i.e. Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. Thus, the
case of the petitioner and those two persons whose case has been
allowed by this Court are on different footing. The discharge petition has
already been rejected by the learned court and coming to the said order
dated 17.01.2017 the Court finds that the learned court has taken care of
in passing that order and it is well within the parameter of section 239
Cr.P.C.
6. In view of above, no case of interference is made out.
7. Cr.Rev. No.224 of 2017 is accordingly Dismissed.
8. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
