Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Kumar Ray Age About 45 Years S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No.166 of 2024
1. Suresh Kumar Ray age about 45 years S/O Brinda Ray R/O Village-
Karmatand, P.O- Doranda, P.S- Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih.
2. Dharmendra Kumar, age about 48 years S/O Krishna Deo Sharma R/O
village- Boro, P.O- Pachamba, P.S- Giridih (M), District- Giridih.
3. Rajdev Mahatha age about 46 years S/O Rakho Hari Mahatha, R/O
Village Pundru, P.S- Pindrajora, District- Bokaro.
4. Satya Prakash Goswami age about 48 years S/O Late Mahadev Goswami
R/O Village - Pundru, P.O- Pundru P.S - Pindrajora, District- Bokaro.
... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Director School Education and Literacy Development Department
having its office Project Bhawan Dhurwa, P.O and P.S Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
3.The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department
having its office Project Bhawan Dhurwa, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
4.District Superintendent of Education having its office at, Giridih, P.O and
P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih.
5.District Education Officer, having its office at, Giridih, P.O and P.S-
Giridih, District- Giridih.
6.The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
office at Kadam Kuan, P.O and P.S- Kadam Kuan, District Patna City,
(Bihar).
7. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, office
at Kadam Kuan, P.O and P.S- Kadam Kuan, District Patna City, (Bihar).
8. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna P.O and
P.S- Patna (Bihar). ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P-V
For the State of Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to GA (Bihar)
--------
12th June 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in
preferring L.P.A No.166 of 2024.
2. In this application, the appellants have stated as under:
"5. That it is submitted that appellants were not aware about the
final order of writ petition dated 21.09.2023 due to communication
gap between appellant and learned lawyer who was conducting the
case however they came to know about the passing the said order
on 10.03.2024 then immediately engage their lawyer and
immediately manage to file the present appeal.
6.That appellants have not got any undue advantage by not filing
the memo of appeal within time as he was helpless to move to this
Hon'ble court.
7.That, delay occurred in filing this appeal is not deliberately, rather
the situation was beyond control of the appellants.
8.That, if the present appeal is not admitted, appellants shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury."
3. In view of the statements made in the application, we think that
sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants for condoning the delay of
145 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A No. 4138
of 2024 is allowed.
4. The appellants, namely, Suresh Kumar Ray, Dharmendra
Kumar, Rajdev Mahatha and Satya Prakash Goswami are aggrieved by
dismissal of the writ petition filed by them to challenge the order of their
termination from service.
5. The appellants who were selected to the post of Assistant
Teacher pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2015 have tendered their joining
by virtue of their selection and a communication thereto vide Office Order
No. 2199 dated 15th September 2016 by the District Superintendent of
Education, Giridih. While they were serving at different schools in the
district of Giridih, the District Superintendent of Education issued a
direction for conducting an inquiry as to whether the appellants had
fraudulently obtained appointment. Pursuant to the communication dated
20th February 2019, a charge-memo was served upon the appellants and, in
reply thereto, they set up a defence that they had completed the teachers'
training from Bhagwan Buddh Primary Teachers' Training College at Soupal
in the State of Bihar and on successful completion of the training they were
issued certificates by the said institute.
6. This was the case set up by the appellants before the writ Court
that the orders of their termination from service vide office orders dated 16 th
September 2019 and 30th October 2019 were passed without considering
their defence.
7. The appellants challenged their termination order by filing
W.P(S) No.416 of 2020 in which the writ Court considered the rival stand of
the parties in the following manner:
"7. Having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, this
Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted for
the following facts and circumstances:
(i) The appointments based on forged and fabricated documents
cannot be allowed to continue at any stage. In the instant case, the
educational (Training) certificate of the petitioners had been sent to
Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for verification vide memo
no. 1064, dated 20.11.2018, issued by Deputy Commissioner,
Giridih. Pursuant thereto, a communique no. 21/2011, has been
received from the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samittee wherein it has
clearly been mentioned that the result of both the petitioners had
been cancelled by the BSEB, Patna and as such their training
certificates were fake, forged and fabricated.
(ii) The plea of the petitioners that Clause-16 of the appointment
letter clearly envisages that salary of the appointees is only
disbursed once documents are verified by the respondents to their
satisfaction and since salary were duly credited in the account of
the petitioners, the authenticity of the documents etc. should not
have been questioned, is not accepted. The said clause has to be
read with memo no. 13, dated 05.01.2016, wherein at Column no. 7
and 8, there is a condition, which clearly mentions that during the
course of verification of certificate (Educational/Training and
others) of the candidates, if it is found fake and forged, the
appointment of the candidate will be cancelled at any time without
any notice and legal action will be taken against the delinquent. In
the instant case, it has been found that the certificate submitted by
the petitioners were not genuine and as such rightly they have been
terminated from the service and proceeding has rightly been
initiated against them.
(iii) The plea of the petitioners that the Hon'ble Patna High Court
in the case of Shanti Kumari and others Vs. State of Bihar in
C.W.J.C. No. 6753 of 2013, has been pleased to set aside the order
canceling the appointment of petitioners in said case and as such
petitioners herein may be given similar benefits, is also not
acceptable to this Court. The said order was passed in a peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. It has clearly been observed in
the para-6 of the said Judgment that " ... ... ... As the Hon'ble
Apex Court in clear terms have restrained any Court from
interfering with the appointment, it is difficult for the Court to
approve any executive action in breach of the direction of the
Hon'ble Apex Court." In the circumstances, petitioners herein
cannot pray for similar relief."
8. Challenging the dismissal of W.P(S) No. 416 of 2020 the
appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal primarily on the
ground that they had no knowledge about cancellation of the results of
teachers' training for the academic sessions 1987-1989 to 1995-1997.
9. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants
submits that several years after a certificate was issued by the training
college the same cannot be cancelled.
10. Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned State counsel would however
submit that the appellants who lack minimum educational qualification for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher cannot wriggle out of the
situation by raising a technical plea.
11. After having examined the materials on record, we observed
that the communication from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
was not disputed by the appellant through which the results of teachers'
training for the academic sessions 1987-1989 to 1995-1997 were cancelled.
Once the cancellation of the results of the teachers' training remains
uncontroverted the appellants cannot raise a plea that the certificate issued
by Bhagwan Buddh Primary Teachers' Training College shall still remain
valid. Therefore, on account of the appellants lacking in possessing one of
the minimum educational qualifications their appointment to the post of
Assistant Teacher must be held illegal. As to the plea raised on behalf of the
appellants that they have no knowledge about cancellation of the results,
we would simply indicate that it shall not change the scenario and the effect
of cancellation of the result shall reflect on their appointment which must
be held illegal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, L.P.A No. 166 of 2024 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
Sudhir/Vedanti (Navneet Kumar, J.)
NAFR
