IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 350 of 2020 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, having office at P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad. 3. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad, having office at Ground Floor, Joint Building, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. ... Appellants Versus Mala Mandal, W/o Late Basudeo Mandal, R/o Vill- Dhorio Mahubani, P.O.- Dhorio Mahubani, P.S.- Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv. ---- Dated: 17/01/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar learned Sr. S.C.-II for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-05-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) against the order of termination as contained in Memo dated 25-04-2017, has been quashed with a further direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits including 50% back wages for the period after 25-04-2017. 3. The facts briefly stated reveal that the husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Basudeo Mandal was a Class-IV employee in the 2 | P a g e Office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Dhanbad-I, but unfortunately, he died on 25-05-2009 in harness which triggered an application submitted by the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on 16-06-09. The said application, along with the necessary documents, submitted by the writ petitioner including her educational certificates which revealed that she was Class-V pass, was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee and the writ petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of a Peon. Consequently, an appointment letter as contained in Memo No. 2278 dated 03-10-2009 was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, accordingly, submitted his joining on the post of Peon in the Office of High School, Dhanbad in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440 on 06-10-2009 which was accepted by the In-charge Headmaster of High School, Dhanbad. It has been stated that vide Office Order as contained in Memo No. 394 dated 26-02-2010, the competent authority had found the educational qualification of the writ petitioner to be in order and the order for payment of salary was given by the District Education Officer, Dhanbad. The writ petitioner was, thereafter, transferred to +2 High School, Govindpur vide Office Order dated 08-06-2012 where she submitted her joining on 13-06-2012. A show cause notice as contained in Letter No. 437 dated 04-03-2017 was issued to the writ petitioner calling for an explanation as to why her services should not be terminated on the ground that she was not having the eligibility criteria and qualification at the time of appointment as per the letter as contained in Memo No. 3577 dated 25-04-1997 and the writ petitioner had duly replied to the show cause notice. However, being dissatisfied with the show cause reply as submitted, a second show cause notice as contained in Letter No. 583 dated 27-03-2017, was issued which was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017 and during the pendency of the said writ application, the writ petitioner was directed to submit the reply to the second 3 | P a g e show cause notice. Thereafter, the Office Order as contained in Memo No. 813 dated 25-04-2017 was issued by the District Education Officer, Dhanbad wherein the services of the writ petitioner had been terminated with immediate effect. The writ petitioner had challenged the said order of termination in a separate writ application being W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 which was allowed vide order dated 21-05-2020 and the order of termination was quashed. The State of Jharkhand being aggrieved with the order dated 21-05-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 has preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.- II that the minimum educational qualification required for appointment to a Class-IV post was Class-VIII pass, but admittedly, the writ petitioner did not possess such qualification which was the reason for her termination. It has been submitted that the show cause reply was not satisfactory as the writ petitioner had failed to controvert the insinuation of not being educationally qualified as per the norms and, therefore, no regular departmental proceeding was necessitated. The learned Single Judge has put undue reliance in the case of Rabab Fatma vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2006 (2) JCR 443 (Jhr) as in the present case, the writ petitioner is guided by Memo No. 3577 dated 25-04-1997 which demarcates the educational qualification necessary to be possessed which the writ petitioner did not have. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II has submitted that even while allowing the writ application preferred by the writ petitioner by quashing the order of termination, the learned Single Judge has not extended the liberty to the appellant/State to start a regular departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein has submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which is headed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the 4 | P a g e order of termination has been passed by the District Education Officer, Dhanbad who was not the competent authority to pass such order. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding was initiated and only by giving a show cause notice which was followed by a second show cause notice on account of the reply submitted by the writ petitioner, her services has been terminated. Mr. Tandon, in support of his contention that the requisite qualification of a compassionate appointee is separate and distinct from a regular appointee, has taken us through the Resolution dated 12-07-1977 of the State of Bihar while submitting that the prerogative and discretion regarding the eligibility of a candidate lies with the appointing authority. The Memo No. 3577 dated 25-04-1997, which formed the basis for the order of termination as well as the show cause notices, are related to regular appointment in Class-IV post, wherein the minimum educational qualification prescribed is Class-VIII pass. While referring to para 19 of the counter affidavit in W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017, it has been submitted that the assertion made regarding resolution dated 12-07-1977 has not been denied, but has been noted to be a matter of record. Mr. Tandon has also submitted, on instruction, that pursuant to the impugned order dated 21-5-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has been reinstated in service but the State, by pursuing the present appeal, is harassing a widow, who had put in seven years of unblemished service before her termination. 6. The writ petitioner was issued a first show cause notice to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated since she did not have the requisite educational qualification at the time of her appointment as a Peon. The show cause notice canvassed itself on the Memo No. 3577 dated 25-04-1997 which featured the qualification required for being considered for appointment in a Class-IV post. Mr. Tandon has controverted the said Memo dated 25-04-1997 while submitting that the same is restricted to regular 5 | P a g e appointment and would not bring compassionate appointment within its fold. This submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner could have necessitated a regular departmental proceeding, but without resorting to such mandatory requirements and by merely issuing show cause notices, the writ petitioner had been terminated from service. It would also seem that there has been no suppression on the part of the writ petitioner and the State authorities, after proper verification of her eligibility including her educational qualification, had given her appointment on compassionate basis. 7. In the case of Rabab Fatma vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra), it has been held as follows: “6. As noticed above, the circular referred to hereinabove, it is clear from the circular that the lady candidate is not required to possess requisite qualification for appointment on class IV posts. In the counter- affidavit, it has been admitted by the respondents that petitioner knows Urdu, which is the second language, besides Hindi. 7. It is well-settled that the delay in seeking appointment on compassionate ground frustrates its purpose and object. But some time we find that it is because of high handedness and inaction on the hart of the authorities of the Government, the legitimate claim of the dependant of the employee for compassionate appointment is frustrated. The instant case is an example where poor widow of a constable has been deprived of from her legitimate claim of compassionate appointment.” 8. The petitioner in the afore-quoted case was merely a literate and reference has also been made of the minimum educational qualification of Class-VIII and this order, in fact, supports the case 6 | P a g e of the present writ petitioner which has been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 21-05-2020. 9. The impugned order dated 21-05-2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 is based on sound reasonings while setting aside the order of termination as contained in Memo No. 813 dated 25-04- 2017 and directing payment of 50% of the back wages. We have been informed at the Bar that the writ petitioner has been taken back in service. Be that as it may, regard being had to the discussions made hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 21-05-2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal 10. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 17th Day of January, 2025. Preet/N.A.F.R.