Pramath Patnaik, J
1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to adjust the services of the petitioner against
the vacant and sanctioned post of Sanskrit Teacher under the respondent no.4, which is a recognized school along with the pay scale and payment of
arrear of salary with all consequential benefits.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner having requisite qualification joined
his services in a recognized school with effect from 13.02.1996. From the date of joining in the said school, the petitioner has been discharging his
duties against the said post of Sanskrit subject as evident from Annexure-1 series. One advertisement was published by the school in question which is
a minority recognized school being fully controlled by the State Government and the petitioner having requisite qualification, submitted application for
being considered on the post of permanent Sanskrit Teacher. However, the petitioner also submitted representation before the respondent no.4
including the respondent nos.2 and 3 for consideration of his case for permanent absorption, since the petitioner has been working on the said post of
Sanskrit subject since 13.02.1996. In spite of the representations submitted by the petitioner for adjustment/absorption/regularization on the post of
permanent teacher in Sanskrit subject, in view of the vacant and sanctioned post, the petitioner left with no alternative, has approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondent authority ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for
permanent absorption on the post of Sanskrit teacher, in view of long uninterrupted services rendered by the petitioner since 1996. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that the advertisement published by the respondent no.4- St. Francis High School, Poriyahat for selection for the post
of Sanskrit teacher, where the petitioner has been rendering unblemished services having the requisite qualification for more than one decade, should
have been justified on the anvil of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 8 SCC
265 (Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) (Para-8), AIR 2018 SC 233 (Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) (Para-
8) and the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.3973 of 2014 (Vishnu Kumar Bansal & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) (Para-15, 16,
19 and 20).
5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4- St. Francis High
School, Poriyahat, wherein it has been submitted that the respondent no.4 is a minority school duly recognized by the Government of Jharkhand and
there are certain sanctioned posts for which the Government pays salary and other emoluments. It is stated that any appointment on such sanctioned
posts made after following the procedure as fixed by the Government which includes adherence to right to equality and equal opportunity. Therefore,
for appointment on sanctioned post, advertisement is issued and candidates are selected in interview by the selection committee and the management
committee recommends the name of the selected candidate to the Government for appointment, which is approved after completing all the formalities
and verifying educational certificates of successful candidate. It has further been submitted that the petitioner after having applied for the post
pursuant to the advertisement is estopped from challenging the same.
6. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.03.2017 has been filed by the respondent controverting the averments made in the writ application. In
the said affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that St. Francis High School, Poriyahat, Godda is a Government approved aided minority school. The
petitioner and many other candidates applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary
basis of daily wages and the total number of vacant and sanctioned post of Sanskrit Teacher is one. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a
teacher appointed by the School Managing Committee on a private basis has been working as a Sanskrit Teacher in the school from 1996. The
adjustment was done due to the increased number of students in the school, but the petitioner has not been appointed against the valid and sanctioned
post.
7. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.05.2018 has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 to the effect that the post of Sanskrit Teacher in
St. Francis High School, Poriyahat, is vacant from 01.02.2010 till date.
8. Learned counsel for the State by referring to para 12 of the writ application has submitted that as a matter of fact the post of teacher in Sanskrit
subject has become vacant with effect from 31.01.2010 after superannuation of one Sri Surya Kumar Mandal, therefore, the advertisement was
published for filling up the post in regular manner. Any selection without advertisement would have resulted in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
having the requisite qualification has been working as teacher in Sanskrit subject since 1996 in the respondent no.4- St. Francis High School,
Poriyahat, Godda. After rendering 14 years’ services it would but natural to legitimately expect for permanent absorption on the post in question,
since the petitioner has got the required qualification having unblemished and uninterrupted service of 14 years.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in recent decision reported in 2018 SCC online SC 771 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand
& Ors.) in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 has been pleased to hold as under: “8. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore
two fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly
appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in
Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the
services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the
employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3)
and Kesari sought to avoid.
9. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration
then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15th
November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th April, 2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing
irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they
have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by
them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regulalrised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct
etc.â€
 The Hon’ble Apex Court has hastened to add, it would be worthwhile for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making regular
appointments only and dropping the idea of making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the process of regular appointments.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. by referring to Uma Devi case, has
been pleased to emphasize that the spirit of Uma Devi case has been ignored and conveniently over looked by adopting new device of making
appointment on contract/temporary/ad hoc/daily wage basis. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has been pleased to hold that the
action of the State in adopting such type of appointment is not permissible and the same is not in consonance with the pith and substance of Uma
Devi’s judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 by referring to judgment of State
of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has been pleased to direct for regularization of services of a night guard who rendered 29
years of services in a College on daily wage basis.
13. In view of the series of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court as referred to above, the case of the petitioner fits into the eligibility
conditions for consideration for permanent absorption in view of the fact that the petitioner has rendered 14 years services on the date of
advertisement having possessed the requisite qualification. It is no doubt true that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be
loath to issue any blanket direction for absorption/regularization of services of the petitioner on the post in question but for the long line of judgments of
the Hon’ble Apex Court coupled with the previous services rendered along with qualification, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption on the post in question in the vacant and sanctioned post of teacher in
Sanskrit Subject in the respondent no.4- St. Francis High School, Poriyahat within a reasonable period preferably within a period of 4 months from the
date of receipt/communication of the copy of the order.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.  Â
