2026:JHHC:18953 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6484 of 2022 ….….. Ram Narayan Tiwary, aged about 64 years, son of Late Mahabir Tiwary, posted as an Assistant Teacher, Project Girls High School, Garu, Post and Police Station Garu, District - Latehar (Jharkhand) (Now Retired). ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Project Building, Post & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director (Secondary Education), Department of School Education and Literacy, Project Building, Post & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 3. The District Education Officer, Latehar, Post & P.S. - Latehar, Distt. - Latehar. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijay Kr. Pandey, Adv Ms. Anjana Kumari, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III C.A.V. ON: 12/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order contained in memo no. 776 dated 05.04.2021, whereby the claim of the petitioner for recognition of service on the post of Assistant Teacher has been denied. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to recognize the service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 01.01.1989 with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Biology on 16.01.1985 at Project Girls High School, Garu, which was later selected as the “Project School” on 30.03.1985, in the financial year 1984- 2026:JHHC:18953 2 85, by the District Three-Man Committee, constituted vide Govt. letter no. 142 dated 23.02.1985. Thereafter, on 14.04.1987, the salary benefits were extended to the untrained teachers of the Project Schools selected in the financial year 1981–82 w.e.f. 01.04.1986; but no such extension was made for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools selected in the year 1984-85. Moreover, a direction vides letter no. 142 dated 04.02.1989 was issued by the State, which provided that the teachers having the minimum requisite qualification of trained graduate would be entitled to recognition of service after approval of the School Service Board, and the same was applied retrospectively. 4. The impugned action was challenged before the Patna High Court, which travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, resulting in the constitution of a Full Bench at Patna High Court, which delivered the judgment on 07.02.1999, reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287, denying the retrospective application of the letter dated 04.02.1989. It was held therein that the procedure for recognition of the services of teaching and non- teaching staff could not differ merely because the schools were selected in different financial years. Thereafter, the State preferred several appeals against the decision of the Full Bench, and the appeals were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidhyalaya Shikshak Sangh reported in [(2006) 2 SCC 545], dated 03.01.2006, which directed the Chief Secretary to constitute a Three-Man Committee to examine and scrutinize the individual claim of the teaching and non- teaching staff. 5. Pursuant thereto, the Three-Man Committee, alias Alam Committee, was constituted, which decided that the services of only those teachers would be recognized who were appointed 2026:JHHC:18953 3 and trained before 04.02.1989. 6. It was also stated in the report of the Committee that the service of the petitioner cannot be recognized on the ground that his appointment letter is fabricated, as two dates of appointment are shown therein, and his appointment was made after the selection of the school. Meanwhile, the services of several similarly situated teachers were recognized vide orders dated 09.02.2011 and 17.08.2016. 7. The petitioner allegedly retired on 31.12.2016 after rendering 60 years of service. Thereafter, the State issued a notification on 25.04.2018. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner moved the writ court, which was decided in his favour, but the respondents did not comply with the said order, resulting in contempt proceedings, which are still pending. 8. Meanwhile, the State issued an impugned order vide memo no. 776 dated 05.04.2021, which denied the claim of the petitioner for recognition of service on the post of Assistant Teacher. Hence, this writ application. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground for non-recognition of service of the petitioner, taken by the Alam Committee, is non-est in light of the policy decision taken by the State vide letter no. 2743 dated 06.10.2012 that the teachers appointed by the Managing Committee up to 04.12.1989 will be considered for recognition of their services, either trained or untrained, and thus, the appointment of the petitioner made in 1985 or 1987 is not relevant as he was appointed much prior to 04.02.1989. He further submitted that in light of the Govt. notification no. 1272 dated 25.04.2018, providing that the graduated teachers having been appointed before 04.02.1989 and completed their training before 30.09.2007 would be considered for recognition of their services. Since the petitioner 2026:JHHC:18953 4 was a graduate and trained prior to 04.02.1989, his claim is squarely covered under the said notification as the cut-off date of appointment has been extended. 10. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.01.2006, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had inspected the school and submitted a status report to the Alam Committee in 2007, wherein the petitioner was shown working in the school. He further submitted that the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, has issued an appointment letter dated 13.03.2014 to the school in the name of the petitioner for the evaluation of the answer books of the matriculation examination 2014; hence, it is wrong to say that the school was closed in 2006 and the petitioner has not been working in the school. 11. It was also submitted that, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Education Officer, the police camp has been installed in school premises, and all classrooms were occupied by the CRPFs, due to which girl students did not attend the school, and they had no option left other than appearing in the matriculation examination from other High Schools; therefore, no passing record of students is available. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the report of the Alam Committee, the appointment letter shown by the petitioner is illegal and invalid as two dates of appointment are shown therein, i.e., one is 16.01.1985 and another is 28.01.1987, making it evident that the said appointment itself is a backdoor entry. He further submitted that, as per the letter no. 131 dated 20.02.1985, the power of appointment of teachers in the 2026:JHHC:18953 5 Project High Schools has been ceased w.e.f. the date of issuance of the letter, and since the petitioner was appointed on 28.01.1987, that is much after the date of issuance of the aforementioned letter, his appointment itself is “void ab initio”. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out the fact that as per the villagers, the school had not been functioning since 2006, therefore, the petitioner was unable to show his continuous presence in the school between 1987 and 2017, and the evidence produced by him, including the appointment letter and the teachers’ attendance register are forged and fabricated. 14. Further, learned counsel for respondents also relied on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Bal Mohan Prasad (LPA No. 138 of 2019) and further submitted that acting upon the findings and recommendations of the Alam Committee, the State declared several schools, including the petitioner’s school, as closed and non-functional vide Resolution no. 1272 dated 25.04.2018. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner claims recognition of his service as Assistant Teacher from 01.01.1989 on the basis of his appointment in Project Girls High School, Garu; whereas the respondents have denied such claim by the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioner's appointment is void ab initio and the documents relied upon by him were found doubtful in the scrutiny conducted by the Alam Committee pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The dispute, therefore, needs consideration with regard to the validity of the petitioner's appointment and his consequent entitlement to recognition of service and consequential benefits. 2026:JHHC:18953 6 17. In the present case, first of all, in order to ascertain the validity of the appointment of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the report of Alam Committee, wherein it transpires that the petitioner has claimed to have been appointed on 16.01.1985; however, on perusal of his appointment letter attached by the petitioner, it was found that the date of appointment shown by him is incorrect, as according to the contribution letter, the Secretary, School Managing Committee, has signed it on 28.01.1987. 18. It further emerges from the record that even though the petitioner has been issued appointment letter on 15.01.1985 and the petitioner has subsequently submitted his joining before the Secretary, Proposed Girls High School on 16.01.1985; however, evidently his joining has been accepted by the Secretary, School Managing Committee on 28.01.1987, i.e., much after lapse of more than two years; which itself creates the doubt of the genuineness of the appointment letter. 19. Thus, this Court finds that the documents relied upon by the petitioner disclose two different dates in relation to his appointment, viz., 16.01.1985 and 28.01.1987, thereby creating a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the petitioner's claim of appointment on 16.01.1985, inasmuch as, the contribution letter has been back dated to show that the petitioner has been appointed prior to the identification / recommendation by the three men committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner to recognize the school as Project Girls High School. 20. Further, on perusal of the letter no. 131 dated 20.02.1985, issued by the Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, it appears that the power of appointment of teachers by the Managing Committee in the Project High Schools has been ceased w.e.f. the date of issuance of the 2026:JHHC:18953 7 letter. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner made after the issuance of the aforementioned letter, i.e., on 28.01.1987, is “void ab initio”. 21. Additionally, the petitioner was unable to prove his presence from 1987 to 2006; rather the proof of his signature in the teacher's attendance register between 2007 and 2017 as has been produced by him seems to be doubtful, inasmuch as, even as per the testimony of the villagers, the school has not been functioning since 2006, and the building is also dilapidated. 22. This Court further finds that though the school was established in the year 1984-85, however, the petitioner was unable to show himself working at the school before 2006. Also, the enrolment or appearance of students in the matriculation examination was not proved by any evidence, as there has been no direct receipt from the school for any board exam since 1986. 23. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to produce any cogent material to establish his continuous discharge of duties in the school during the period from 1987 to 2006, and the attendance records relied upon by him after 2006 do not seem authentic in view of the fact that the school had ceased to function since the year 2006 itself. 24. The Report in the Alam Committee for the petitioner’s school is mentioned in Serial No. 77 and it reveals that, the land of the school, with an area of 1.54 acres, was donated and registered in the name of the Governor. However, on inspection of the related documents, several deficiencies were found by the Alam Committee; the name of the donor was not mentioned on the judicial stamp, the signatures of the executors, viz., Mr. Etwa Oraon and Mr. Suresh Oraon, were not verified by any 2026:JHHC:18953 8 advocate, and the area of land, the name of the witness, and the date of execution were also not mentioned. 25. Further, on perusal of the letter no. 323 dated 23.03.2021 issued by the District Education Officer, Latehar, to the Respondent No. 2, it appears that the concerned land is maintained under the Schedule Tribe Account’s Raiyat Land Register of the East (CS) and the land agreement and the donation letter in the name of the Governor have not been provided by the School, and as per the letter of the Circle Officer, there is no land in the name of Project Girls High School, Garu. In light of the foregoing facts, this Court finds that the land on which the dilapidated structure of the school stands was never lawfully vested in the school, and it was functioning merely as a shell institution in the garb of frivolous and fabricated documents. 26. This Court further finds that the issue relating to the recognition of service of teaching staff of Project Schools and the findings recorded by the Alam Committee is no longer res integra. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Jharkhand v. Bal Mohan Prasad (LPA No. 138 of 2019), wherein it has been observed that the writ Court took a very unusual direction while ignoring the findings of the Alam Committee, as there is a group of teachers falling under the separate category of “closed schools”. The Committee examined the records of several Project Schools and gave specific reasons for not recognizing the appointment of the teaching and non- teaching staff of those schools. The reasons cited by the Committee include that some of the schools were self- proclaimed and not selected by a 3-man committee, some had no infrastructure and no facilities of drinking water and toilet, and some had a smaller number of students enrolled and 2026:JHHC:18953 9 qualified for the matriculation examination. Additionally, it was found that the appointment of some staff was suspicious, some were lacking essential qualifications, some were found to be involved in criminal cases, and some had already left the school. Based on the findings and recommendations of the Alam Committee, several schools, including the petitioner’s school, were closed by the State as they were non-functioning, vide Resolution no. 1272 dated 25.04.2018. 27. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the appointment of the petitioner is invalid, because he has presented forged documents related to his appointment and continuous discharge of services at the School, falsely implying that his date of appointment was before the school selection date, and that he was rendering continuous service from his date of appointment to the date of superannuation, only in order to get his services recognized retrospectively, and as such, he is not entitled to the claim sought by him in the instant writ application. 28. 28. Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:29/06/2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 01.07.2026