Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 343 (PAT)

Md. Idris v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-19

J.N.BHATT

body2006
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. In this group of 18 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a common question has been involved. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order simultaneously. 2. Since the question involved is common, therefore, it would not be necessary to highlight all the facts of each case individually. However, let it be manifested that the question which is raised and placed in focus is as to whether the impugned orders passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj, whereunder the promotions on the posts, as well as, the benefit in the higher scale given to the Assistant Teachers working in different schools in the District of Kishanganj were cancelled, are valid or not. 3. The petitioners initially came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers by the orders of the District Superintendent of Education. Some of them were granted LA. trained scale of pay or graduate trained scale of pay and were posted on the vacant posts allegedly in accordance with the recommendation of the District Education Establishment Committee. It is further contended by the petitioners that they were eligible to be promoted to the post or to the higher scale and, therefore, cancellation of such orders has been illegal and without jurisdiction and they are not valid as the impugned orders were passed without observing the principle of natural justice. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that they are visited with the civil and evil consequences on account of the impugned orders in this group of petitions without having been given an opportunity of being heard. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj in one case being C.W.J.C. No. 10359 of 2004 which is adopted in all the cases at the time of submission, inter alia, contending that the orders of promotion to the Assistant Teachers were not legal as there was no recommendation of the District Education Establishment Committee. It is further contended that such orders of promotion to the higher posts, as well as, in higher scale were not regular and legal and, therefore, the impugned orders of cancellation of such earlier orders have been passed. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh is appearing on behalf of eleven petitioners, whereas, learned counsel Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh is appearing for three petitioners in two petitions, Mr. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh is appearing on behalf of eleven petitioners, whereas, learned counsel Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh is appearing for three petitioners in two petitions, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh is appearing for two petitioners, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Kumar is appearing for one petitioner, Mrs. Pallavi Mishra is appearing for one petitioner and Mrs. Binita Singh is appearing for one petitioner. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Junior Counsel to Government Pleader No. 1 is appearing for the State. They have offered their submissions. 6. However, they have drawn the attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 4284 of 1991 and other analogous cases on 17.8.1992. It is further submitted by all counsel appearing for the respective parties in this group of 18 petitions that in similar group of petitions in the said decision the Division Bench has issued directions. In this connection, they have jointly relied upon paragraph 17 of the said judgment of the Division Bench wherein the following directions have been issued: "...(a) The District Education Officer, Purnea and the District Education Establishment Committee shall classify the cases in batches in the following groups: (i) Where no recommendations/approval of the District Education Establishment Committee was obtained. (ii) Where the case of the seniors have been left out. (iii) Where the orders of promotion are forged ones. (a)Ms. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State agreed that as the inquiry in the aforementioned matter is to be limited to the documents which are available in the office of the District Education Officer, it will not be necessary to give opportunity of hearing to each of the teachers individually. In this view of the matter, we direct that the District Education Establishment Committee shall scrutinise all the records as a\so the orders of promotion passed in favour of concerned teacher in presence of the President and General Secretary of the Teachers Association. The affected teachers against whom the impugned orders have been passed and/or those who have been affected by reason of non-consideration of their cases may file their respective representations together with all connected papers before the President and the General Secretary of their Association, who may verify the records in the light of the said documents. The affected teachers against whom the impugned orders have been passed and/or those who have been affected by reason of non-consideration of their cases may file their respective representations together with all connected papers before the President and the General Secretary of their Association, who may verify the records in the light of the said documents. (b) In case it is found that either the orders of promotion were passed without approval of the District Education Establishment Committee or ignoring the case of the Senior teacher and/or said orders are forged documents the impugned orders shall stand. (c) However, if in case of some teacher it is found that the orders of promotion were passed upon compliance with the rules and/or Article 16 of the Constitution of India the impugned orders as against them shall be recalled. (d) The requisite orders in these matters should be passed within two months from the date of receipts of the copy of this order. (e) However, in cases where it is found that in absence of proper gradation list it is not possible for the District Education Establishment Committee and/ or the representatives of the teachers to come to a just decision in that event a tentative gradation list would be prepared within three months from the date of receipts of the copy of this order and a final gradation list should be prepared within a period of two months thereafter and in the meanwhile at least one months time should be given to the affected teachers to file their objections to the draft gradations list. Once the final gradation list is published, the District Education Establishment Committee shall pass appropriate orders of promotion vn accordance with law keeping in view the sanctioned strength of each cadre, the existing vacancy, etc..." 7. In view of the consensual submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the directions issued in paragraph 17 of the said Division Bench decision shall be applicable in this group of 18 petitions except the change in the name of the District as in the earlier judgment Purnea District was involved, whereas, in the present case Kishanganj District is involved. 8. 8. Except the change in the name of the District from Purnia to Kishanganj all the aforesaid directions shall be applicable and, therefore, this group of petitions is covered by the said decision and foltowing the same directions contained in paragraph 17 of the said Division Bench judgment, these petitions are disposed of with a direction that the impugned orders of the District Superintendent of Education of Kishanganj in this group of 18 petitions shall not be implemented and status quo shall be maintained in respect of the petitioners in this group of 18 petitions until the directions given in paragraph 17 of the said judgment are complied with, gradation list, temporary or final, is prepared after the opportunity of hearing is offered. 9. All the petitions, accordingly, shall stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.