Karam Pal Sahu vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The case of the petitioner is of reinstatement as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Tigra, district Gumla, on the ground that he has been acquitted of the charge of rape in Sessions Trial No. 131/2000 vide judgment dated 29.06.2010. Prosecution was the basis for his earlier disengagement in 2008. He had worked from November 2004 to November 2008 after being duly selected by Village Education Committee and also received honorarium. His representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla (Annexure-6) dated 28.07.2012 has also not been heeded.

Respondents have taken a plea that after acquittal, case of the petitioner was taken up by the Village Education Committee in its meeting held on 19.12.2011 in the light of letter no. 286 dated 13.12.2011 of Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Co-ordinator, Block Resources Centre, Gumla, but the Committee resolved not to take him back as Para Teacher. Respondent further relied upon earlier letter of Director, State Project, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure-B) in order to strengthen their case that selection of a Para Teacher is primarily done at the Village Education Committee level. When Village Education Committee after consideration of the case of the petitioner on his acquittal has refused to re-nominate him as Para Teacher in the school in question, no appointment can be given.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also having a B.Ed Degree and therefore, requirement of NCTE guidelines in terms of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are also met by him.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the pleadings relied upon by them. Engagement of a Para Teacher is not in the nature of appointment to a civil post under the State. Para Teachers are appointed on selection by the Village Education Committee in the light of policy decision of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan. As such, petitioner's selection was not on civil post and having Constitutional protection in the manner conceived under Article 311. Petitioner has not annexed the engagement letter or discharge letter either. Though, petitioner was unfortunately implicated in a case for the offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, but acquitted on 29.06.2010, respondent acting upon his representation referred the matter to the Village Education Committee to take a fresh decision. Village Education Committee chose not to nominate him again. Under the R.T.E Act and guidelines issued by the NCTE, engagement of Para Teacher after 1st April 2010 should be made only upon fulfilment of laid down condition such as, teachers training qualification, etc. Disengagement of the petitioner in 2008 brought an end to his term. The Village Education Committee has refused to nominate him. Moreover, there may be various valid reasons such as availability of such post of Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Tigra and other mandatory conditions stipulated by NCTE. Village Education Committee is a body conceived under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan to take such decisions. Its decision not to nominate him cannot be faulted in the background of factual position and that the petitioner did not enjoy any legal or Constitutional protection as available to a regular employee holding a civil post under the State. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.