Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 169 (JHR)

Indra Narayan Mahato v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.5.1995 issued by the Director, Secondary, Primary and Audit Education, Bihar by which he has held that there is no ground to cancel or modify the earlier order dated 25.9.1991 whereby the respondent No. 4 has been declared senior to the petitioner and further prayed for quashing the letter dated 22.6.1995 issued by the District Education Officer, Singhbhum at Jamshed-pur by which he has directed recovery of excess salary of Selection Grade teacher paid to the petitioner because of his illegal promotion to the Selection Grade, 3. It appears that petitioner earlier moved this Court bearing CWJC No. 2371 of 1991 (R) challenging the order whereby the Selection grade given to the petitioner was cancelled. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.7.1994 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar to decide the question of seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 4 afresh and also the order by which the petitioner was given Selection Grade. 4. Facts of the case, in short, is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of Bharat Sevashram Sangha Pranavananda Vidya Mandir, High School, Sonari, Jam-shedpur on 2.1.1975. The said school was unrecognized school. The Managing Committee was given permission for establishment of the school vide order dated 8.1.1975. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.12.1975 the school was accorded recognition. In 1978, the school was declared as a linguistic minority school. In 1976, respondent No. 4 was appointed as a teacher on 23.11.1976. In 1985, two posts of Selection Grade teachers were sanctioned for the said school. The Managing Committee vide resolution decided to give Selection Grade scale to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Selection Grade. However, the said decision was disapproved by the Director, Secondary Education vide letter dated 25.9.1991 and the grant of Selection Grade to the petitioner was cancelled and in his place one Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4, was given Selection Grade on the ground of his seniority over the petitioner. It was further directed that excess salary paid to the petitioner be recovered from him. 5. Although, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the unrecognized school on 2.1.1975 but he was not having requisite qualification. It was further directed that excess salary paid to the petitioner be recovered from him. 5. Although, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the unrecognized school on 2.1.1975 but he was not having requisite qualification. In the appointment letter of the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned that appointment as Assistant Teacher was subject to the condition that he must obtain Teachers Trainingship within three years. It was also mentioned in the letter that the petitioner had to teach the subject to be allotted to him. Petitioner did his Teachers Training in 1979. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4, who was having requisite qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher i.e. M.Sc. B.Ed. was appointed as Assistant Teacher. In terms of appointment letter, petitioner did not complete his Teachers Training within time rather he got the certificate of training in 1979. 6. Mr. A.R. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the circular dated 18.7.2003 and also the letter No. 2305 dated 25.7.1977 and submitted that the required training for a particular subject was exempted i.e. Sanskrit, Music and Physical Training is concerned. According to the learned counsel therefore merely because the petitioner was a trained teacher he cannot be declared junior to respondent No. 4. 7. But from perusal of Government circular dated 26,7.1998 it appears that it was clarified that those untrained teachers who were appointed between 21.5.1974 and 18.6.1977 in a recognized school against the sanctioned posts, the approval of their services will be counted from the date of issue of Government order and the seniority of such teachers counted from the date of passing training. The circular/letter dated 25.7.1977 lays down the guidelines for promotion to the post of Headmaster in a Government School. In para 7 of the said letter guidelines have been given for determining the seniority. This paragraph also provides that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the Teachers Training experience. None of the guidelines provides that a Teacher who acquired Teachers Training subsequently will be declared senior to the Teacher who is appointed with the requisite qualification and training. 8. Be that as it may, admittedly, respondent No. 4 was M.Sc. B.Ed, and also appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.11.1976 whereas petitioner was appointed on 2.1.1975 but he obtained Teachers Training on 14.2.1979. 8. Be that as it may, admittedly, respondent No. 4 was M.Sc. B.Ed, and also appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.11.1976 whereas petitioner was appointed on 2.1.1975 but he obtained Teachers Training on 14.2.1979. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby respondent No. 4 has been declared senior to the petitioner. 9. So far the Impugned order by which direction has been issued for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, petitioner has not been given Selection Grade because of some misrepresentation of fact from the side of the petitioner rather the respondents on their own granted Senior Selection pay scale to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, direction for recovery of the amount will be wholly unjustified. 10. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed in part and it is held that although the respondent No. 4 has been rightly declared senior to the petitioner, the excess salary paid to the petitioner because of his promotion to Selection Grade shall not be recovered from him. That part of the impugned order is quashed. Writ allowed in part.