- (1.) PETITIONERS in this writ application, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, commanding upon the respondents to dissolve the village Education Committee (Gram Shiksha Samittee) of village Khajuri Middle School constituted by the respondents 5 to 7 and other villagers in pursuance of Government Circular dated 8.11.2003 and also to quash all subsequent selection of Para Teachers made by the said committee since the date of its constitution. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State as also by the private respondents.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Gram Shiksha Samitee at its meeting held on 16.3.2004, had made selection of the private respondents 8 and 9 to the post of Para Teacher in the village school by violating the procedure of Rules and directives contained in the Circular of the State Government dated 8.11.2003. Learned counsel explains that the petitioners being the resident of the same village and belonging to the backward community, have been refused the benefits of their appointment as a Para Teacher and on the other hand, the private respondents 8 and 9 who are members of the general category, have been given the benefits illegally. Learned counsel explains further that since the Gram Shiksha Samitee had acted in the alleged illegal manner in the selection of Para Teachers at its meeting held on 16.3.2004, the said samitee should be dissolved. Learned counsel adds further that earlier, the petitioners had raised their grievances before this court by filing writ application vide WP(S) No. 3423 of 2004. By order dated 22.7.2004, this court had directed the petitioners to file fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and with the corresponding direction to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the representation within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioners had filed the representation, but without affording them any reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Deputy Commissioner had rejected the representation of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent State as also counsel for the private respondents, submits on the other hand that though, in the earlier writ application, the petitioners had raised an identical grievance on the ground that they were illegally debarred from selection, and selection of the respondents 8 and 9 were made illegally, but at that time, no grievance was raised by the petitioners in respect of the constitution of the Gram Shiksha Samitee, as such the petitioners cannot therefore raise any grievance in respect of the constitution of the Gram Shiksha Samitee since they have not explained as to in what manner, its constitution is illegal. Learned counsel explains further that the representation of the petitioners was duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner who had given opportunity to the petitioners to appear before him on the dates specified, but the petitioners did not appear and as such, the matter has been dropped. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, selection of the respondents 8 and 9 to the post of Para Teacher was made way back in the year 2004 and since such selection is valid only for the period of one year from the date of selection, though subject to renewal for further periods, the petitioners may very well avail their opportunities at the next meeting of the Gram Shiksha Samitee for submitting their candidature to the post of Para Teacher.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the grounds on which the petitioners have sought to challenge the constitution of the Gram Shiksha Samitee, are not clearly spelt out or made out. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioners against the selection of the private respondents 8 and 9 by the Gram Shiksha Samitee will have no consequential effect, since such selection was made in the year 2004 and the same was valid only for one year and the next round of selection of Para Teacher is to be made at the subsequent meeting of the Gram Shiksha Samitee.;