Md. Tanwir Rabbani vs The Jharkhand Academic Council

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have initially moved before this Court commanding upon the Jharkhand Academic Council (‘JAC’ in short) for approval of their appointment on the sanctioned and vacant post of Fazil – 02 Posts, Alim – 02 Posts, Moulvi, Hafiz, Graduate Trained Teachers, Inter Trained Teachers, Matric Trained Teacher, Clerks & Peon – 01 Post each; however, during the pendency of the writ petition when the decision had been taken by the JAC vide order dated 28.10.2023, they had filed an interlocutory application challenging the same as the JAC has rejected the approval of their appointment and has directed for appointment afresh. The interlocutory application had been allowed and the writ petition was amended.

The brief facts pleaded in the writ petition had been that the present managing committee had been constituted on 22.2.2021 and the same had been duly approved by the JAC. The present managing committee intended to fill up the vacant posts in Madarsa and thereby had sought for permission from the JAC which has been obtained and advertisement were issued in local newspaper inviting application from eligible candidates. The JAC had also provided experts to supervise and monitor the selection process and under the nominated expert academician, the selection process has commenced and a written examination was held on 19.3.2023.

It has also been pleaded that the President and the present Secretary of the Madarsa had recused from the selection process on account of participation of their relatives and communication to this extent had been made to the JAC also.

It has further been pleaded that examination was conducted under the expert nominated by the JAC and was also supervised by the Magistrate, whereafter on the basis of the marks obtained in written examination and interview, merit list was prepared and the 11 nos. of petitioners were selected on the following posts:-

It has also been pleaded that pursuant to the selection, the petitioners were offered letter of appointment and thereafter they are working and discharging their duties. The respondent Secretary has also written to the Secretary, JAC about the selection process and had prayed for approval of their appointment, inasmuch as, for want of approval, they are not being paid the salary.

During pendency of the writ petition the JAC has rejected their claim vide order dated 28.10.2023 on the ground that there had been a proposal for approval along with the recommendation of the District Education Officer; however, some complaints had been made to the Deputy Commissioner, who had directed for an enquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer and the report of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29.4.2023 reveals of irregularity in appointment. The report of District Education Officer dated 29.4.2023 also reveals of favour being extended to the members of the committee and hence, the approval to appointment cannot be granted.

The said decision of the Council dated 28.10.2023 has been challenged by way of interlocutory application, which has been allowed and thereafter the prayer had been amended.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Education Officer as well as by the Jharkhand Academic Council and also the Managing Committee of the Madarsa.

The JAC in their counter affidavit has stated about the permission for advertisement, the advertisement in the newspaper, the nomination of subject specialist and also about the examination and interview held for appointment on the sanctioned post, which had been in presence of the Council’s representation, the District Education Officer, the local MLA and Head Moulvi.

In the Counter affidavit, the report of the District Education Officer dated 12.3.2023 had been annexed and as per the report, it has been mentioned that there are total of 224 nos. of students, however, on the date of inspection, only 76 had been present. The report also revealed that the In-charge Moulvi had furnished the documents in relation to constitution of managing committee including that of the donor members and the same has also been approved by the Council. The report further revealed that the allegation levelled by one Moin Akhtar regarding irregularities in the Madarsa is baseless and the Circle Officer has also enquired about the lands on which the Madarsa is situated, which does not belong to Md. Moin Akhtar, the complainant.

The report of the Sub Divisional Officer had also been brought on record in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that complaints had been received as against the present Secretary and the President of the Madarsa. The allegation had been to the extent that the person who has been nominated as Donor Member has not donated any land and there are allegations against Md. Khurshid Alam, who had been the secretary of the Madarsa. It has also been mentioned in the report that relative of the managing committee had been appointed and the copies of the answer-book had not been provided, hence, the appointment has been held to be under cloud and recommendations has been made for cancellation of the appointment.

There is another enquiry report by the same District Education Officer, which is dated 3.4.2023 (earlier one was of 12.3.2023) wherein it has been stated that allegations had been made in relation to appointment, however, no evidence has been led. It has also been admitted that the Secretary and the Head Moulvi had recused from the selection process; however, on account of the students attendance/presence it has been stated that the approval should be stayed.

From the records and pleadings, it appears that the procedure for selection has been duly followed and the selection has been made under the superintendence of JAC by expert academicians and in presence of government officials. The Secretary and the In-charge Moulvi had also taken recuse from the selection process owing to participation of their relatives.

In the aforesaid circumstances, whether there had been perversity and non-application of mind by the JAC in passing the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 is to be considered.

The District Education Officer had submitted two reports, first dated 12.3.2023, wherein he had found the allegations made by the complainant namely Moin Akhtar to be baseless. The allegation with respect to the donor member and his claim over the land of Madarsa has also been dealt in the said report on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Mahagama and it has been found that no land on which the Madarsa has been constructed belong to the complainant Moin Akhtar.

The reasons for another enquiry and report are not clear; however, the District Education Officer had submitted its report dated 3.4.2023 wherein also it has been mentioned that no evidence had been led to substantiate the allegation with respect to favour in the selection process. Even in the concluding part, on account of student-teacher ratio he has only prayed that there should be stay on the approval of the appointment. The District Education Officer has never stated about cancellation of the selection process as mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.10.2023.

The report of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 28.4.2023 is mostly confined to the nomination of Md. Khurshid Alam as donor member and also with respect to the allegations against the then President in relation to MDM Scheme. There is no finding with respect to how the selection process had been unfair.

After going through the aforesaid enquiry reports, which forms the very basis of the issuance of the impugned order, this court could not find any substantive material based on which the conclusion has been drawn; not to approve the appointment of the petitioners. The authorities had failed to demonstrate with cogent reason as to how they had arrived at a conclusion that the appointment process lacks transparency. When an authority arrives at a conclusion that a process is not transparent or it is biased there must be evidences and instances to support the same as the legitimate expectations and recommendations made in favour of the Petitioners would be adversely affected. A conclusion cannot be arrived merely on surmises and conjectures that too on the basis of motivated complaints which had been made after the selection process had been over.

Considering that the present managing committee including the nomination of Donor Members had the approval of the Jharkhand Academic Council as may be evident from the letter of the Secretary, JAC dated 12.4.2022, the process of selection and there being no challenge to the constitution of the Management Committee till the culmination of the selection process, it makes the complaint motivated for scandalising the selection process. In view of the Secretary and the In-charge Moulvi taking recuse from the selection process and the District Education Officer also remarking that no evidence has been led in relation to the allegation, the complaint had no legs to stand.

There is absolutely non-application of mind of the Respondent Secretary, who has relied only upon the enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Education Officer, which also are not conclusive in relation to any finding or merit as to how the selection process was tainted and malicious. Even the District Education Officer has not referred for cancellation of the selection process but has only mentioned about the stay on the approval on the ground of teacher-student ratio and not on the ground of there being lack of fairness in the selection process. The affected parties including the Petitioners have also not been heard at any point of time.

Thus, I find merit in this writ petition and hence, the impugned order dated 28.10.2023 issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondent authority is directed to re-consider the matter of approval of the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and while doing so, the Secretary, JAC shall consider the reports of the nominated experts, the tabulation-sheet etc. in order to ascertain the merits of the petitioners and if the appointment of the petitioners are found to be in accordance with law, letter of approval be issued within a period of 04 weeks thereafter.

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.