( 2025:JHHC:35314 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2261 of 2012 --------- Nanda Choudhary , W/o Dhiraj Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Nanda Chholabaria, P.O., Sargarbhanga, P.S. , Bagdahari, District- Jamtara ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara Collector ate office, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. and District- Jamtara 3. The District Superintendent of Education Office, P.O., P.S and District –Jamtara 4. The Block Education Extension Officer Kundahit, P.O. and P.S. Kundahit, District- Jamtara 5. The Block Development Officer, Kundahit Block, P.O. and P.S. Kundahit,, District- Jamtara 6. The Secretary- cum- Headmaster, Village Education Committee, Jambad, P.O. Jambad, P.S. Kundahit, District – Jamtara … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : D.C. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar, G.P. VI --------- C.A.V. Judgment Pronounced on 29/08/2025 This instant writ application the petitioner has been filed before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 21/10/2008 vide memo No.680,passed by District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner has been rejected, And Further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondent No.6 to allow the petitioner to continue her duty in a peaceful manner in Upgraded Primary School, Jamtara, ( 2025:JHHC:35314 2 And Further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to release the salary (honorarium)to the petitioner since 29/9/06 to till date for other ancillary relief. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 Annexure-12 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the recommendation of petitioner made by Block Level Committee cannot be denied on the basis of statement made by opposite party. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No.3434/07, which had been disposed of by order dated 28/2/08 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshwar Sahay as then his Lordship was) of this Court . Thereafter the petitioner again moved before this Hon'ble Court for non- compliance of order dated 28/2/08 and filed contempt application being Cont (C)No.426/08 which had been dismissed by order dated 15/9/08 by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Justice Amareshwar Sabay as then his Lordship was). 5. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot suffer when the said authority i.e. Aam Sabha had selected the petitioner on 20.03.2006 and she was selected by Block Education Committee on 30.06.2006 which had recommended name of the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has not considered the case of the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated ( 2025:JHHC:35314 3 21.10.2008. It is submitted that recommendation of selection of this petitioner by Block Level Committee dated 30.6.2006 has not been cancelled and hence this Writ Petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts in a distorted manner. It is submitted that Village Education Committee Jambad (kundit) did not obey the order dated 26-04-2008 of Superintendent of Education, Jamtara and had not allowed the petitioner to teach in the school and informed that the petitioner Nanda Choudhary neither appeared before the 'Gram Siksha Sammitee, Jambad' 20-03-2004 for selection nor she had given any type of application for selection of Para teacher and the 'Gram Siksha Sammitee' ( i.e. Annexure-B) fully disagreed with the decision of her selection. It is submitted that perusal of the Attendance Register (i.e. Annexure-C) of the school it is clear that only two (02) para teachers (1) Premchand Manjhi (ii) Sheikh Iftekhar Ahmad, are working/posted in the school. It is submitted that the President “Gram Siksha Sammitee" in his Letter dated 09-06-2008(i.e. Annexure-D) to the 'Deputy Commissioner-cum-Secretary District Executive Committee' stated that they had not selected the present petitioner as Para Teacher through "Gram Siksha Sammitee Jambad". It is submitted that petitioner is claming that her application was received by the Observer Dereshnar Soren but the letter dated no. 78/dated 17-08-2006 (i.e. Annexure- ( 2025:JHHC:35314 4 E), B.E.E.O, Kundit reveals the real fact that Dereshnar Soren was not the observer but one Jaydev Mandal, Teacher of Primary School Baramasia was deputed as Observer to the said school. It is submitted that Jaydev Mandal was a Teacher of Primary School Baramasia and Dereshnar Soren reported before the present respondent vide letter dated 16-10-2008 that they have not received any application of the petitioner "Nanda Choudhary" for the appointment of Para Teacher of School Jambad and the signature is not the signature of Dereshnar Soren. Thereafter, impugned order was passed on 21.10.2008 as Annexure -12 and hence this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 7. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears that initially the petitioner was selected by Aam Sabha on 20.03. 2006 for the post of Para Teacher Upgrded Primary School, Jambad. 9. It reveals from the office order dated 17.03.2006 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer ( in short BEEO) that one Jaydev Mandal Teacher of P.E.B was appointed as the “Observer” for selecting the said Teacher on 20.03.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the application before Jaidev Mandal on 20.03.2006 10. It appears that the after selection by Aam Sabha , petitioner’s name had been sent for recommendation before the Block Education Extension Committee. The Block Education Committee held meeting on 30.6.06 at 3:00 P.M. under the Chairmanship of Sri S.M.Choudhary, Block Development Officer and the Block Education Committee, ( 2025:JHHC:35314 5 Kundahit had recommended the selection of petitioner to the post of Para Teacher, New Primary School, Jambad. The name of the petitioner stands at serial No.3. 11. It appears that the Block Education Extension Officer, Kundahit on 29.8.2006 (i.e. Annexure-4) informed the Secretary/President of Village Education Committee of Now Primary School, Jambad, that the Block Education Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Assistant teacher and her name was sent to District Level Committee, so, she was allowed to resume her duty. 12. It appears that when the petitioner went to the school after getting the aforesaid letter for her joining and handed over the letter to teacher Premchand Maji, Secretary of the School, but the Secretary of the School did not accept the said letter and had not allowed her to join. 13. It appears that the Block Education Extension Officer, Kumdahit issued a Memo No. 52, dated 3.4.2007(i.e. Annexure-7) by which, show cause notice has been issued to the President/Secretary-cum-Teacher Premchand Maji Upgraded Primary school, Jambad in the Light of aforesaid application made by the petitioner. 14. It appears that the District Superintendent of Education Jamtara issued a letter no.1157, dated 06.12.2007 (i.e.Annexure-8), addressing to Secretary/President of Village Education Committee, Jambad for payment of honorarium of petitioner since March 2006 and also directed to make payment within two days. 15. However, no honorarium payment was made to petitioner. ( 2025:JHHC:35314 6 16. Thereafter the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 3434 of 2007 for payment of honorarium with effect from 29.6.2006 which has been disposed of by order dated 28/2/2008 (i.e. Annexure-9) by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Justice Amreshwar Sahay as then his Lordship was ). 17. It appears that District Superintendent of Education Jamtara on the basis of report of B.D.O. Kundahit vide letter No. 466 date 24.04.2008, issued a Memo No. 37 dated 26.04.2008 ( i.e . Annexure 11) by which he directed that in the Light of letter No.466, dated 24.04.2008 by Block Development Officer, Kundahit, the petitioner was directed to resume duty in the Primary School, Jambad to the post of Asstt.Teacher and Sheikh Iftehar Ahmad, whose selection was not made legally to the post of Para Teacher, was terminated from the post and Headmaster –cum- Secretary of School was directed to allow the joining of the petitioner and not to take work from said Sri Ahmad. Photo copy of Memo No. 37 dated 26.04.2008 is enclosed as Annexure-11 . 18 Therefore, by Memo No. 680, dated: 21/10/2008 (i.e. Annexure-12), District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara had issued the office order by which claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 19. It reveals from the counter affidavit dated 04.07.2012 filed by the Respondents that although the petitioner was appointed in the light of order dated 28.02.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3434 of 2007 by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Justice Amreshwar Sahay as then his Lordship was ), however again by another order the ( 2025:JHHC:35314 7 Gram Siksha Sammittee informed vide letter dated 20.03.2004 that the petitioner was not selected for Para Teacher and Gram Siksha Sammittee has disagreed and stated that Shekh Iftekar Ahmad and Premchand Choudhary are working . 20. It is evident that from letter dated 09.06.2008 (Annexure- D) The President Gram Sikha Sammittee informed DC that the petitioner was not been selected as Para Teacher through “Gram Siksha Sammittee, Jambad”. 21. It appears that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that petitioner is claming that his application was received by the “Observer” Dereshnar Soren but the letter dated No. 78 dated 17.08.2006, B.E.E.O, Kundit reveals that Dereshnar Soren was not the “Observer” but Jaydev Mandal, Teacher, of Primary School, Baramasia was deputed as “ Observed” to the said school. 22. This Court finds that once by Annexure – 11 i.e. vide order dated 26.04 .2008 the District Superintendent of Education, Jambad ( i.e. Annexure -11) had directed to appoint the petitioner and had removed Sheikh Iftehar Ahmad, then there was no occasion for the Gram Shikcha Samiti to cancel the said order vide resolution dated 09.06.2008 ( Annexure-D). 23. It appears from the pleading of the parties that earlier writ petitioner had filed in W.P.(S) No. 3434 of 2007 for payment of honorarium with effect from 29.09.2006 which was disposed on 28.02.2008 by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Justice Amreshwar Sahay as then ( 2025:JHHC:35314 8 his Lordship was) by this Court with certain observation. 24. It further reveals that the petitioner had also filed the Contempt (C) Case No. 426 of 2008 for non- compliance of the order dated 28.02.2008 . However, the said Contempt case was dismissed on 15.09.2008 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amreshwar Sahay as then his Lordship was) of this Court as the petitioner was appointed. 25. However, it reveals that the pursuant to order dated 28.02.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3434 of 2007, it appears that the petitioner was permitted to work in upgraded Primary School, Jambad as Para Teacher and one Sheikh Iftehar Ahmad, who was not legally appointed as Para Teacher, was discharged from the service by the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, in the light of order dated 28.02.2008 ( i.e. Annexure-9) passed in W.P.(S) No. 3434 of 2007 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 26. 26. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer, Kundahit, vide memo No. 466 dated 24.04.2008 ( i.e. Annexure-B) had submitted report and clarified the Block Education Extension Officer, Kundahit that from the perusal of all the document , it is evident that Block Level Education Committee had selected the petitioner Nanda Choudhary on 30.06.2006 and which was also confirmed by then Block Education Extension Officer, Kundahit vide letter dated No. 29.08.2006 (i.e. Annexure-4). 27. He also informed that on 24.10.2006 in the meeting of Block Level Core Committee, some illegal ( 2025:JHHC:35314 9 person had selected, Shekh Iftehar Ahmad illigal in the School, who was placed at serial No. 37, and it was found during enquiry that entry of his name is illegal and he had directed the Block Extension Officer , Kundahik to inquire and punish the guilty person. He further directed to Gram Shikcha Samittee that Smt. Nanda Devi (Choudhary) i.e. the writ petitioner has been selected validly as second Para Teacher for NPS, Jambad by the Block Education Committee. If Nanda Choudhary has worked in the said Collage then payment should be ensured to her from the said date. 28 . Thereafter, consequent of direction given by the Office order DSE, the Secretary/ President/ Block Education Extension Officer, Kundahik and the petitioner was present and after hearing both the sides, the D.S.E. Jamtara had issued the memo No. 371 dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure 11) and permitted the petitioner to continue to the said post of the Teacher at Upgrade Primary School, Jamda and also directed that Sheikh Iftehar Ahmad be discharged from the service. 29. Thus, it is clear that suddenly the authority had recalled the order dated 26.04.2008 by passing the fresh order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure-12) by rejecting the application of the petitioner and which is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. 30. It is evident that once the Authorities had permitted the petitioner to join in the school in light of order dated 28.02.2008 passed W.P.(S.) No. 3434 of 2007 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshawar ( 2025:JHHC:35314 10 Sahay as then his Lordship was) of this Court, then there was no reason to remove the petitioner from the service. 31. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure- 12) issued by the Respondent No. 3 is set-aside and the Authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, except the salary for the period 21.10.2008 till the date of passing the judgment. 32. Thus, this W.P.(S) No. 2261 of 2012 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/