Skip to content


Urmila Mishra Vs. Human Resources Department - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantUrmila Mishra
RespondentHuman Resources Department
Excerpt:
.....teacher by the managing committee of the said school, which was selected and taken over as project high school by the state government. the original petitioner, being a lady, was appointed as assistant teacher on 31.2.1983 vide the appointment letter as contained in annexure-1 to the writ application, pursuant whereto she joined her post on 2.1.1984.4. the matter of recognition / absorption of the teachers of project high schools was considered by the full bench of patna high court in project uchcha vidyalaya shikshak sangh vs. the state and others, and analogous cases, as reported in 2000(1) pljr287 and the direction was given to the state government to examine the claims of the teachers for recognition / absorption of their services in their respective schools. against the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 6426 of 2014 1. Neelam Kumari Mishra 2. Sadhana Devi ...… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Ranchi.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Ranchi.

3. The District Education Officer, Gumla.

4. The Principal, Project Balika High School, Palkot, District Gumla.

5. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Patna. ...… Respondents -------- CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Munga Lal Kr. Chitra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Advocate ----- 6/19.9.2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. The petitioners are the daughters of the original petitioner, Urmila Mishra, who died on 8.9.2015, during the pendency of this writ application and accordingly, these petitioners were substituted at the place of their deceased mother, by order dated 13.4.2016 passed in I.A. No.434 of 2016.

3. The original writ petitioner had filed this writ application for payment of her salary, as she claimed to be working as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) in Project Balika High School, Palkot, in the district of Gumla since 02.01.1984. It is stated that the original petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of the said School, which was selected and taken over as Project High School by the State Government. The original petitioner, being a lady, was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 31.2.1983 vide the appointment letter as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, pursuant whereto she joined her post on 2.1.1984.

4. The matter of recognition / absorption of the teachers of Project High Schools was considered by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Project Uchcha Vidyalaya shikshak Sangh Vs. the State and Others, and analogous cases, as reported in 2000(1) PLJR287 and the direction was given to the State Government to examine the claims of the teachers for recognition / absorption of their services in their respective schools. Against the decision of the Full Bench of Patna High Court, the State of Bihar preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 6626 to 6681 of 2001 in the Supreme Court of India, State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Project Uchcha Vidyalay Sikshak Sangh and Ors., reported in 2006(2) JLJR (SC) 57, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Chief Secretary of the unified State of Bihar to constitute a -2- Three Men Committee comprising of two officers and one educationist of repute and / or a retired Judicial Officer to examine the individual cases of teaching and non-teaching staff of the selected Project High Schools for their regularization / absorption in services.

5. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Three Men Committee was constituted and the said Committee gave its recommendation with respect to the original petitioner also, which is contained as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The recommendation of the Three Men Committee shows that the original petitioner was appointed on 2.1.1984 and at the time of her appointment, she was having the qualification of B.A., but she was not having the qualification of B.Ed., and accordingly, her appointment could not be approved.

6. One letter No.142 dated 4.2.1989 has been brought on record as Annexure-6, issued by the unified State of Bihar in the Department of Human Resources and Development, relating to the appointment of teachers in the Project High School. It is stated in the said letter that the minimum qualification for appointment of teacher shall be Graduate Trained, but in case of ladies, and the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories, if the trained teachers, are not available, the services of the untrained teachers may also be recognized in the pay scale of Graduate Untrained Teacher, but they had to obtain training within the period of three years.

7. Several writ applications were filed in this Court, one being W.P.(S) No.5994 of 2013, Smt. Deomani Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., and its analogous cases, which were disposed of by a detailed order dated 14.9.2016, wherein, this Court took note of the fact that the Director, Secondary Education (Now the Department of School Education and Literacy) Government of Jharkhand, had issued an order contained in Memo No.3245 dated 1.12.2015 whereby, in the matter of a lady candidate who was also not having the required qualification of training, her service was approved with effect from 1.1.1989 in Graduate Untrained Pay Scale, in view of the letter of the State Government bearing No.142 dated 4.2.1989 as discussed above. On the basis thereof, the aforesaid writ applications were allowed, directing the respondent State, particularly the Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, to grant recognition / approval to the services of the petitioners in those writ applications also with effect from 1.1.1989 in Graduate Untrained Pay Scale, in view of the letter No.142 dated 4.2.1989 issued by the unified State of Bihar, which was followed by the Director, Secondary Education, while granting approval to the service of the similarly situated lady teacher vide Memo No.3245 dated 1.12.2015, if the case of such petitioners were otherwise fit for being recognized / approved. -3- It was directed that in case, the services of any of those petitioners were not fit for being recognized / approved for any other reason apart of their being untrained, the same was to be communicated to the respective petitioners.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that the case of this original petitioner is also fully covered by the order dated 14.9.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.S No.5994 of 2013 and its analogous cases, inasmuch as, the original petitioner was also a lady candidate and though she was not having the qualification of B.Ed., at the time of her appointment, but she was having the qualification of Graduation and her case was also squarely covered by letter No.142 dated 4.2.1989 issued by the unified State of Bihar.

9. This application is accordingly disposed of, in terms of order dated 14.9.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.S No.5994 of 2013 and its analogous cases, directing the respondent No.2, the Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, to grant recognition / approval to the services of the original petitioner also with effect from 1.1.1989 in Graduate Untrained Pay Scale in view of the letter No.142 dated 4.2.1989 issued by the Unified State of Bihar. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass the order giving the recognition / approval to the services of the original petitioner, as directed above, within a period of three months from the date of production / communication of this order, whereupon, the petitioners, who are substituted heirs of the original petitioner, shall be paid the admissible salary of the original petitioner with effect from the date of approval of her service till the date of death of the original petitioner, i.e., 8.9.2015.

10. It is made clear that if it is found that the service of the original petitioner was not fit for being recognized / approved for any other reason apart of her being untrained, the same shall be communicated to the substituted petitioners within the same period.

11. This writ application accordingly, stands allowed with the directions as above. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //