2025:JHHC:25030 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5977 of 2012 --------- Ramdeo Prasad Yadav son of Charku Mahto, resident of Village Bakradih, P.O. Kheshkari, P.S. Saria (Bagodar), District Giridih. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Director Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. District Programme Officer (D.P.O.) – cum – District Superintendent of Education, Vigyan Bhawan, Jhanda Maindan, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Giridih (Town), District Giridih. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Bagodar, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih. 6. Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. Rajendra Prasad Diwakar son of Late Sanichar Mahto, village- Bakradih, P.O - Kheshkari, P.S- Saria (Bangodar) District- Giridih .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II --------- 32/Dated:-12.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing of the memo no. 765 dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Education -cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih (respondent no.3) from which claim of the petitioner to be continued as a Para Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Bakradih have been rejected. (ii) For approval of selection in the said school at Bakradih. (iii) For the payment of honorarium since November, 2009 to till today. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in 2025:JHHC:25030 2 W.P. (S) No. 6130 of 2011, which was disposed of by directing the concerned respondent to treat the writ application as representation and take an appropriate decision with regard to the prayer of the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after disposal of the previous writ application, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and he was given due opportunity. The concerned respondent after verification of record has passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondent No.7 has earlier resigned, but he has again been appointed. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-5 which is the document of Village Aam Sabha wherein his name was duly approved by the Aam Sabha; but his name was not recommended. 6. From record, especially from para 16, 17, 18 and 22 of the counter affidavit, it appears that there was no direction given by the Department to the said School for selection of para teacher in UP Bakradih on 03.10.2006. As per the notice for selection of para teachers in the district of Giridih, which was published vide Memo No.932 dated 09.09.2006; wherein column Nos. 1 and 3 clearly indicated that as per the norms and circular for selection of para teacher, the Aam Sabha meeting organized by the V.E.C. of the concerned school and the Block Development Officer of the block concerned will authorize the department person for the supervision; however, in the said village committee meeting (Aam 2025:JHHC:25030 3 Sabha) which was shown by the petitioner, there was no any person deputed by the concerned Block Development Officer for supervision of selection of para teacher for concerned school and therefore no any signature was found in the resolution. 7. The case of the respondents is that the selection of petitioner is not as per the rules and the same is illegal and improper. It further transpires from record that though the petitioner was selected by the V.E.C. U.P.S. Bakradih vide Memo No.315 dated 23.12.2006 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Bagodar on 02.01.2007, his selection is not approved by the Block Education Committee Bagodar and the law is very clear that without the approval of Block Education Committee, his appointment could not have been said to be valid. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and looking to the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the respondent no.3 in light of order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.6130 of 2011 fixed the date for hearing on 28.12.2011 and 24.03.2012 for which notice was duly served vide memo No. 2012 dated 12.12.2011 and 332 dated 14.03.2012 and intimation were duly sent to the parties concerned and they were called for with entire documents. In pursuance of which, the parties appeared before the respondent No. 3 along with documents and on careful consideration, the concerned respondent has passed a detailed and reasoned order vide memo No. 765 dated 14.05.2012 by which the claim of the petitioner was not found in accordance with 2025:JHHC:25030 4 law, rules and Government enforceable order. 9. It goes without saying that from the impugned order (Annexure-2 to the writ application), it appears that the claim of the petitioner with regard to approval by the School and Village Education Committee; an action has already been taken against the Secretary for flouting the provisions with regard to appointment of para teacher in the school. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and there is no error in the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-