- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the office order contained in Memo no. 933 dated 22nd May, 2008 (Annexure -14), issued by the respondent no.4, District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby her services have been terminated along with two others acting upon an order dated 2nd April, 2008 issued by the respondent no.3, Regional Deputy Director, Department of Education, South Chottanagpur Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by a common impugned order, the services of present petitioner along with two others were terminated on the ground that they had obtained the Teachers Training Diploma from a Institute, namely, Sister Nivedita College and another such college, which was not recognized under the National Council for Teachers Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it would be apparent from perusal of Annexure -3, Certificate dated 20th June, 1994 issued by the said Institution, Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta, as also clarification given by the Principal of the said college dated 30th April, 1997 contained at Annexure -6 that the petitioner was a student of the said Institute in Teachers' Training Course bearing Registration No. NC/015038 -93, for which she faced the examination on 28th January, 1994 and was declared successful vide Annexure -2 Series and this had been done prior to coming into force of NCTE Act, which became effective from 1st July, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she applied for the post of Matric Trained Teacher in the Respondent School i.e. C.P. Samitee Middle School, Cable Basti, Jamshedpur and after interview, was selected for the said appointment where several other persons had also participated. The petitioner thereafter joined on the post of Assistant Teacher on 2nd January, 1997 and on the recommendation of the
(2.) MANAGING Committee of the school, upon proper verification of her certificate, the Respondent -District Superintendent of Education accorded approval of her appointment vide order dated 3rd July, 1997 (Annexure -7). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that strangely enough, thereafter the petitioner and two others were asked to show cause as to the authenticity of their teachers' training qualification and whether it had been obtained from a recognized institute or not? The petitioner accordingly responded to the same by giving details vide Annexure -10, but by a common impugned order, her services along with two others have been terminated by the District Superintendent of Education vide order dated 22nd May, 2008 contained in Memo No. 933, which also appears to be on the purported direction of the Regional Deputy Director, Department of Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sarbani Bose -Vs. - The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P. (S) No. 5412 of 2005 (Annexure -15) to the writ application, that in the similar circumstances, cancellation of the appointment of said person was quashed as she had obtained teachers training course from a institute before coming into force of the N.C.T.E Act, 1993 i.e. w.e.f 1st July, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 400/2006 preferred by the State against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, was also dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that by I.A. No. 3731 of 2012 filed on behalf of the petitioner in the instant case, the petitioner has brought on record the judgments rendered in the case of the other two persons whose services were also terminated by common impugned order vide W.P. (S) No. 2741 of 2008 dated 17th December, 2008 in the case of Kalpana Lodhiya_Vs. -State of Jharkhand & others and W.P. (S) No. 3323 of 2008 rendered on 29th March, 2010 in the case of Ravishankar Dubey -Vs. -State of Jharkhand and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that since rigors of the NCTE, did not operate retrospectively to debar the petitioner's qualification obtained prior to coming into force of the said Act, the cancellation of the petitioner's - appointment by the impugned order on that pretext is wholly unsustainable in law as well as arbitrary.;