Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 237 (JHR)

Giridhar Chandra Das v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer made in the writ petition is to promote the petitioner on the post of Headmaster w.e.f. the due date and atleast from 05.05.1986 as his junior Ghanshyam Ravidas, respondent no. 5 was promoted as Headmaster in the Scheduled Caste Quota. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as teacher on temporary basis as Scheduled Caste candidates by the District Superintendent of Education Hazaribagh/Giridih vide order dated 30.09.1973, Annexure-1. The petitioner, thereafter, completed two years teacher training and secured First Division in the examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. The respondent no. 5, Ghanshyam Ravidas was appointed as teacher vide letter no. 1150 dated 01.12.1973 and his name appears at serial no. 10, Annexure-3. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the said respondent no. 5 joined in December, 1973 i.e. about two months after the petitioner and he subsequently passed teacher’s training examination in the Session 1976-78. The contention of the petitioner is that he obtained Graduate Degree in August, 1982 and as per his knowledge, respondent no. 5 has completed graduation thereafter. However, respondent no. 5 was promoted on the post of Headmaster of Middle School, though according to the petitioner, he was junior to him and as such, he made representation before the respondent authorities, but his grievances have not been redressed. 5. The said respondent no. 5 was granted B.A. Trained scale of Rs. 850-1360/-and posted as Headmaster of Middle School vide office order no. 6070-79 dated 05.05.1986, as such, petitioner feels discriminated . 6. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The stand of the respondent in the said counter affidavit is that the respondent no. 5 was initially appointed in the scale of Untrained Matric Teacher and thereafter, he had undergone Teacher Training and allowed Matric Trained Scale w.e.f. 13.12.1980 i.e. basic grade. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 being a member of Scheduled Caste was granted promotion to the Junior Selection Grade of Matric Pay Scale vide memo no. 4226 dated 22.05.1986, but later, the Finance Department turned down his promotion on the ground that he passed Teacher Training Examination on 13.12.1980, as such, the Junior Selection Grade, which was granted to him, was shifted from 01.04.1981 to 13.12.1985. 7. The contention of the respondents is that promotion of the respondent no. 4226 dated 22.05.1986, but later, the Finance Department turned down his promotion on the ground that he passed Teacher Training Examination on 13.12.1980, as such, the Junior Selection Grade, which was granted to him, was shifted from 01.04.1981 to 13.12.1985. 7. The contention of the respondents is that promotion of the respondent no. 5 as Headmaster of Middle School, which has a greater responsibility, was apparently wrong and he cannot be given the pay scale of the post of Headmaster of Middle School. It is further contended through the submission made in the counter affidavit that respondent no. 5 had not been qualified for having Junior Selection Grade in Matric Trained Scale till 12.12.1985, therefore, he could not have eligibility for the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 01.01.1983, therefore, the entire matter of promotion of the respondent no. 5 to the post of Headmaster was decided to be placed before the Establishment Committee for revocation/ cancellation of his promotion order dated 05.05.1986. In these circumstances, the contention of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner, which hinges upon the order of promotion in favour of the respondent no. 5 is not sustainable on the facts as well as law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that respondents have not yet taken the stand relating to the promotion/cancellation of promotion of respondent no. 5 or consideration of the case of petitioner for such promotion. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the facts, which have been brought on records, as have narrated hereinabove, disclosed that the petitioner’s case is based on promotional order of respondent no. 5 which he alleged that the order is discriminatory. However, the respondents have themselves decided to place the matter in relation to revocation/cancellation of promotion of the respondent no. 5 before the District Establishment Committee. It further appears that the case of the petitioner has not been independently considered. 10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation with all necessary facts and supporting documents within a period of four weeks from today before the respondent no. 2, Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who shall consider the case of the petitioner and also take informed decision on his stand in respect of promotion of respondent no. 2, Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who shall consider the case of the petitioner and also take informed decision on his stand in respect of promotion of respondent no. 5 within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter which shall be communicated to the petitioner. 11. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove shall not be taken as comment on the merit of the case of either of the parties. Respondent no. 2 shall dispose of representation in accordance with laws, rules, guidelines and circulars prevalent in the department. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.