Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 963 (JHR)

Amar Nath Ghosh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.

2002-09-03

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the Chief (Education) Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro to grant him promotion to Grade-8 post with upgrade designation on the basis of degree of Siksha Visharad as per Memo No. CBSC/Att. 1 m/ 3325/88/3006, dated 25th May, 1988. 2. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 10th January, 2000 (Annexure-13) whereby his representation has been rejected with further prayer to quash the Memo No. 3627 dated 19th June, 2002 (Annexure-15) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Master of the post of Planning Assistant in the SMS 2 Department under General Manager (Steel). 3. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Trainee vide Memo No. 336 dated 21st February. 1983 and on completion of training successfully, he was posted in the maintenance yard vide Office Order No. 1660 dated 18th April, 1984. The Manager, Personnel Recruitment of the Company vide Memo No. 17/88 dated 9th June, 1988 asked for option from the employees, who were interested to work under Education Department and to apply for the Post Junior Teacher. The petitioner being interested, applied and his option having accepted, was appointed to the post of Junior Teacher Grade-1 wide order dated 18th November, 1988. In respect to petitioner and some other, it was mentioned that there will be no change in their basic pay and date of increment. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Master (Arts) vide Order No. 286 dated 29th June, 1991 in L-6 Grade. 4. Further case of petitioner is that he along with others prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date of initial appointment in the Education Department vide Annexure-9. Thereafter, the petitioner on advise, moved before this Court in CWJC 2889 of 1997 (R) for proper designation from the date of initial appointment in the Education Department. This Court directed the authorities to decide the representation wherein after the respondents rejected the representation vide order dated 10th January, 2000. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents with a malafide motive and with a view to deprive the petitioner and others, who represented, transferred them to non-cadre post of Planning Assistant in SMS 2 Department vide impugned Order No. 3627 dated 19th June, 2002. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents with a malafide motive and with a view to deprive the petitioner and others, who represented, transferred them to non-cadre post of Planning Assistant in SMS 2 Department vide impugned Order No. 3627 dated 19th June, 2002. It was also submitted that transfer from one cadre to another cadre was not permissible. Even if there is excess staff in a school, the respondents cannot transfer on pick and choose basis. The principle of first come last go should have been followed. 6. The petitioner filed supplementary affidavit showing names of certain persons at paragraph-5 therein, who are stated to be junior to him. It was pleaded that those juniors have been retained in the teaching side of Education Department whereas senior like petitioner has been posted against non-teaching post. 7. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the non-teaching cadre. On his option, he was taken in the teaching side but having not confirmed, he has no right to continue in the Education Department. On his appointment as Junior Teacher vide order dated 18th November, 1988, it was made clear that there will be no change in his basic pay and date of increment. 8. Further, the stand of the respondents is that the teachers in the schools having found excess, they have been accommodated against equivalent post in their original side. 9. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel submitted that there are approximately 40 schools at Bokaro including primary schools. The petitioner is a master of a primary school in S-8 grade teaching English, Hindi and Morl. Science. Sri J. Lakra, L. Thomas, G.D. Gupta, T.M. Nair, K.K. Pandey, Seema Monal and T.K. Roy are teachers in the same school but they are either in senior grade or senior in the same grade. The total number of students of the school having decreased since last 3-4 years, it was decided by management to reduce teaching staff proportionately. 10. In view of the stand taken by respondents and there being no cause of action for promotion in the teaching side from retrospective date, I am not inclined to grant any of the relief. 11. The total number of students of the school having decreased since last 3-4 years, it was decided by management to reduce teaching staff proportionately. 10. In view of the stand taken by respondents and there being no cause of action for promotion in the teaching side from retrospective date, I am not inclined to grant any of the relief. 11. The respondents with a view to retain the petitioner in service, instead of retrenchment, if adjusted him against an equivalent post, it cannot be alleged to be illegal or malafide. 12. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.