2025:JHHC:25012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5464 of 2019 ------- Anna Murmu, son of Daniel Murmu, resident of Dudhani, P.O. Bhotokoria, P.S. Jama, District Dumak, Jharkhand. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 3. District Education Officer, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.SC-II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II ---- 15/ 21.08.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the English subject as the petitioner has qualified in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam.-2016 pursuant to which she has also appeared for counselling but appointment letter has not been issued to her on the sole ground that she had pursued regular B.Ed. Course while working as ad hoc teacher at Katurba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Gopikandar. 2. The case of the petitioner is that during course of her contractual appointment with the erstwhile JEPC, she took due permission from the competent authority and did her B.Ed. course from Sahebganj College; however, the claim for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher has not been considered only for the reason that petitioner was a regular contractual employee at Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Gopikandar during the period she was perusing her B.Ed. course and as such, she cannot take benefit of that certificate. 2025:JHHC:25012 2 3. During pendency of this writ application on 01.11.2023, this Court has passed the following orders: “1. Reference may be made to the order dated 27th September, 2023, which reads as under:- “Heard the parties. It is specific case of the petitioner, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated persons though have not obtained permission from the State for pursuing B.Ed degree, yet their candidature has been considered but case of the petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has already deposited entire amount which he had earned by way of honorarium during the said period. Respondent-State is directed to file specific reply to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that if case of similarly situated persons have already been considered, why not case of the petitioner be also considered. As prayed for, put up this case on 01.11.2023.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 19th February, 2021, which read as under:- “2. That the petitioner humbly states that pursuant to letter no.653 dated 16.6.2015 issued by Jharkhand Education Council, Dumka Contract Employee of the Project were directed to return the Honorarium of their working period, those obtained B.Ed Degree during the service period. 3. That pursuant to the aforesaid letter, petitioner passed B.Ed Session 2010-11 regular course and taken salary from September, 2010 to July, 2011 total Rs.102415/= (One Lac Two thousand Four hundred Fifteen) has been returned by cheque No.87855, dated 16.11.2020 in the name of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Gopikandar in the Account No.11731615446 on (Salary head). The petitioner made application before the District Education Officer, Dumka on 9.12.2020 stating that similarly situated persons have been given benefits after refunding the salary. Accordingly the petitioner requested to extend the same benefits as others have been given, since the petitioner also refunded the salary from September, 2010 to July, 2011 of Rs.102415/=, details of Bank deposit receipts. Copy of cheque and application of earlier given to authority and the letter No.613 dated 16.6.2015 along with the application. The petitioner also forwarded the copy to all concerned authority for doing needful.” 3. Learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.II appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to paragraph no.17 of the specific counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 30.10.2023, which reads as under:- “17. That it is humbly stated and submitted that warden-cum-Teacher Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Gopikandar submitted that petitioner Smt. Anna Murmu taken total Rs.21,91,028.00 (Rupees Twenty 2025:JHHC:25012 3 one lacs ninety one thousand twenty Eight) and she has returned Rs.1,02,415.00 (One lac two thousand four hundred fifteen rupees) in the account of Kasturba Gandhhi Balika Vidyalaya, Gopikandar, A/C No.11731615446 State Bank of India vide letter No.107 dated 18.10.2023.” 4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has already returned Rs.1,02,415/- to the respondents i.e. honorarium received by her for the period from September, 2010 to July, 2011 during which she undertook the regular course of B.Ed, the action of the respondents is highly unreasonable in demanding honorarium received by the petitioner for the entire period during which she was employed as contractual teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Gopikandar, Dumka. 5. Be that as it may. 6. The respondents while filing specific counter affidavit dated 30th October, 2023 have not responded the specific averment made in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 19th February, 2021, wherein it has been specifically stated that similarly situated persons have been given the benefits after refunding the salary/honorarium. 7. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no.3- District Education Officer, Dumka is directed to file supplementary affidavit specifically on the aforesaid factual issue positively within three weeks. 8. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission” on 7th December, 2023.” 4. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.08.2024 has been filed by respondent No. 3 wherein the respondents have taken following stands in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16: “15. That it is humbly submitted and stated that the Authority by Memo No. 2413 dated 25.10.2023 has directed to the Wadden- Cum- Teacher, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Gopikandar to not accept the amount as deposited by the petitioner as she has done her duty full time job means 24 hours in the School and as such the honorarium as given to her is legal and her B.Ed. Degree obtained by her is not recognised as she has obtained the same during her regular duty meaning thereby she was /is staying 24 hours in her school the Annexure "Z" of this Specific Counter Affidavit. 16. That it is humbly stated and submitted that from the above discussion it is crystal clear that the B.Ed. Degree Course of the petitioner is not accordance with law rule and against the Clause- 8 of the Appointment Letter accordingly the District Education Establish Committee vide meeting dated 17.10.2019 unanimously decided not to issued the Appointment Letter to the petitioner as the petitioner has got her B.Ed. Degree from S.K.M. University, Sahebganj during her full time Job at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Gopikandar.” 5. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner on 07.01.2025, indicating therein that similar objections were raised by the respondents in the case of Nandan Kumar Jha, s/o. Ashok 2025:JHHC:25012 4 Kumar Jha and Kumar Mukesh, s/o. Jay Prakash Narayan that those petitioners did their B.Ed. course while working in Government Organization. 6. It further transpires from the records that the said two persons namely, Nandan Kumar Jha and Kumar Mukesh approached this Court by filing a writ application being W.P.(S). No. 3699 of 2023 and this Court, after going through the records of that case, passed the following orders:. “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, the case of the petitioners requires consideration for following reasons: (i) The stand of the respondents is with respect to erstwhile organization; as such, there is no business with the present respondents to look into that aspect of the matter. If there was any misconduct by these petitioners during their employment in the erstwhile organization, the respective organization was well within the jurisdiction to take action against them. (ii) On the one hand, the petitioners were contractual employee in the JEPC and on the other hand; the permission from the competent authority for doing B.Ed. course has been accorded by the respondents. (iii) The certificates which have been submitted by these petitioners have not been doubted by the respondents coupled with the fact that on the date of advertisement each and every criterion required for the purpose of employment has been fulfilled by the petitioners herein. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ application stands allowed. The respondent no.3 is directed to issue appointment letter to these petitioners as early as possible but not beyond a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 7. The instant case is also same and similar with that of Nandan Kumar Jha and Kumar Mukesh and it has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the persons were given appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the counter- affidavit which has already been referred herein above but could not dispute the fact as to whether the said two persons were given appointment or not. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ application is also allowed on the same reasoning what has been taken by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3699 of 2023 and 2025:JHHC:25012 5 accordingly, the concerned respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to this petitioner also, as early as possible, but not beyond the period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated herein above. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal