Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1616 (JHR)

Margret Tudu v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-18

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to continue to give her trained scale, which had earlier been approved by the Ministry of Finance, vide its Resolution dated 08.02.1999 (Annexure- 3). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to refund the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 19,644/-which has been recovered from the petitioner's salary. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction upon the Respondent- Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, to conduct the 'Teachers Training Examination' without any delay, in consonance with the directions contained in the order of this Court in an earlier writ application, vide W.P. (S) No. 663 of 2002. 3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: The petitioner being possessing an Intermediate qualification, was appointed as 'Untrained Teacher' in the Government School on 20.01.1988. She was given the scale of untrained teachers from the date of her appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner had completed her in service training course of one year sometime in the year 1993-94, where after she claimed that she had qualified for appearing at the 'Teachers' Training Examination'. However, the teachers' training examination was never held by the concerned authorities of the respondents. It appears that pursuant to a Circular issued by the State Finance Department sometime in the year 1999, the State Government conceded to pay the scale of trained teachers to the petitioner and similarly situated other teachers working in the various government schools, in anticipation that the examination would be conducted soon and they would be able to appear at the examination. The payment of such higher pay scales continued till 2007, on the purported basis of Circular issued by the State Finance Department in the year 2001. Later, the scale of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers was reverted to lower scale of untrained teachers from 2007. It also appears that during all this period, despite the fact that specific direction was issued by this Court in writ application [W.P. (S) No. 663 of 2002] to the respondents to conduct the examination, but the Respondent-JAC did not conduct any examination even till date. 4. It also appears that during all this period, despite the fact that specific direction was issued by this Court in writ application [W.P. (S) No. 663 of 2002] to the respondents to conduct the examination, but the Respondent-JAC did not conduct any examination even till date. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that she had completed her in-service training courseof one year and has acquired the eligibility to appear at the examination, for acquiring the eligibility of being considered as fully trained teacher, but the Respondent-JAC has not conducted any examinations till date. The further grievance of the petitioner is that though without any fault on her part, it was by the decision of the State Government themselves that the petitioner was given the scale of trained teachers since after the date of the issuance of the Finance Department Circular in 1999, but without any prior notice, the scale has now been abruptly stopped and reverted to a lower scale and furthermore, recovery has been made from the salary of the partitioner, in installments and till the date of fling of this writ application, a sum of Rs. 19,643/- has already been recovered from the petitioner's salary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the recovery is being made from her salary, is totally illegal and against the principle of natural justice and equity, since no opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioner as to why recovery should not be made. 6. Counsel for the Respondent-JAC submits that decks has now been cleared for conducting the examination and the counsel expects that it would be conducted within next six months from today. It is further stated that though the petitioner did not acquire the eligibility to appear at the examination, since the period of training she had undergone was only 9 months whereas the required period is 12 months. However, now the petitioner has acquired the eligibility after completing the twelve months training course. 7. It is further stated that though the petitioner did not acquire the eligibility to appear at the examination, since the period of training she had undergone was only 9 months whereas the required period is 12 months. However, now the petitioner has acquired the eligibility after completing the twelve months training course. 7. Counsel for the Respondent-State, on the other hand, submits that the payment of trained scale to the petitioner was earlier given was on the basis of the Circular issued by the Finance Department in 1999, but as stated in the counter affidavit of the Respondent-State, such payment was made only in anticipation that the examination would be conducted shortly and the petitioner and the similarly situated teachers, who had undergone in-service training course, would qualify as trained teachers. It was on account of the subsequent Circular issued by the Finance Department in 2001, that a decision has now been taken to revert the scale of such teachers to the scale of untrained teachers and to recover the excess paid amount from the salary of all such teachers including the petitioner. 8. From the rival submissions as it appears, admittedly, the petitioner has not been able to acquire full eligibility of a trained teacher, in view of the fact that she has not appeared at the required examination. This may not be altogether the fault of the petitioner, since the Respondent-JAC has not conducted the examination during all these years. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner has not acquired the eligibility for obtaining the scale of trained teachers. 9. As regards the petitioner's prayer for directing the respondents to continue to pay her the scale of trained teachers, it is obvious that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate claim for such scale unless she qualifies for the scale. Therefore, no such direction, as prayed for, by the petitioner, can be given to the respondents. 10. As regards the petitioner's grievance against the recovery made from her salary, it does appear that the procedure adopted and the manner in which the recovery of the amount is sought to be made by the respondents, is certainly illegal and against the principles of equity and natural justice. Admittedly, no prior information or notice was given to the petitioner as to why the recovery could be made nor any opportunity offered to her. Admittedly, no prior information or notice was given to the petitioner as to why the recovery could be made nor any opportunity offered to her. Further, there is no case of the respondent accusing the petitioner of practicing any fraud of misrepresentation, in obtaining the purported excess payment by way of her salary. The concession in this regard was given exclusively and entirely by the the Respondent-State authorities, that too, by way of a decision take by the Finance Department. As such, the respondent authorities cannot possibly make any recovery of any purported excess paid amount, from the salary of the petitioner. 11. As regards the petitioner's prayer for a direction upon the Respondent- JAC to conduct the examination without any further delay, since the counsel for the Respondent-JAC assures that the examination would be conducted within the next six months, no order needs to be passed in this regard. 12. In the light of the discussions, the respondent authorities are directed to refund whatever amounts, which has been recovered from the petitioner's salary till date, and shall refrain from making further recovery. The Respondent-JAC is directed to ensure, in accordance with its assurance, that the examination for the teachers training is conducted within six months from the date of this order. 13. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission. 14. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Respondent- State as also to the counsel for the Respondent-JAC.