Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 113 (JHR)

Sister Shantila Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-17

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER I.A. No. 1231 of 2012 The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition order dated 19.01.2012 has been passed which has initiated filing of the present amendment application. By the impugned order dated 19.01.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that at the relevant time, the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress was Post-Graduate Trained and since, the petitioner was not possessing the said qualification, she is not entitled for the pay-scale as claimed by her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, the foundational facts of the case have already been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition and the statements made in the amendment application are only clarifying and supplementing the writ petition therefore, it would not change the nature of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer for amendment in the writ petition. 4. I am of the view that, since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction for fixation of her pay-scale, a decision in regard to which has been finally taken by the order dated 19.01.2012, the present application seeking amendment in the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, I.A. No. 1231 of 2012 is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 5243 of 2011 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The petitioner was appointed on 27.03.2003 as Headmistress in St. Jude's Middle School, Naudiha, Gumla. The said school was declared a Minority Institute vide notification dated 26.09.1978. She was paid salary till December, 2007 and thereafter her salary was stopped and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the pay-scale of the petitioner was not approved vide order dated 10.01.2012. It has further been stated that, by order dated 19.01.2012, the appointment proposal and proposal for pay fixation of the petitioner have been rejected. 8. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the pay-scale of the petitioner was not approved vide order dated 10.01.2012. It has further been stated that, by order dated 19.01.2012, the appointment proposal and proposal for pay fixation of the petitioner have been rejected. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in terms of Circular dated 05.11.1993 which has been reiterated subsequently on 12.12.2001 and 09.02.2002 by the Government of Jharkhand, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress was fixed as Graduate Trained and only in the year, 2007 the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress has been changed to Post-Graduate Trained. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thus, submitted that, since the petitioner was appointed in the year, 2003 itself, her appointment would be regulated under the Circular dated 05.11.1993 which has been subsequently reiterated by the Government of Jharkhand. 9. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that, since the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress has been changed to Post-Graduate Trained, the appointment proposal and proposal for pay fixation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 10. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.01.2012 would indicate that, only the proposal for pay-fixation has been denied on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing Post-Graduate Trained qualification as on the date of her appointment on the post of Headmistress. A perusal of Circular dated 05.11.1993, a copy of which has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner, would indicate that the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress was Graduate Trained and the said resolution has been reiterated by the Government of Jharkhand subsequently, on 12.12.2001 and 09.02.2002. It is not the stand of the respondents that these circulars are not applicable or subsequently, recalled by the Government of Jharkhand prior to 2004. The petitioner has made a categoric statement in the rejoinder-affidavit. Paragraph No. 10 of the rejoinder is extracted below. 10. It is not the stand of the respondents that these circulars are not applicable or subsequently, recalled by the Government of Jharkhand prior to 2004. The petitioner has made a categoric statement in the rejoinder-affidavit. Paragraph No. 10 of the rejoinder is extracted below. 10. “That it is stated that the Director, Primary Education vide letter No. 214 dated 19th April, 2001 has also informed the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur that for the purpose of appointment in Minority Schools, the guidelines as contained in Letter No. 709 dated 04.03.1993 is required to be followed.” 11. I further find that the respondents have not disclosed in the counter-affidavit, the basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It has simply been stated by the respondent-authority that since the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Headmistress is Post Graduate Trained, the proposal for pay-fixation of the petitioner has been rejected. From the records produced in the present proceeding, I find that the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the Circulars which were applicable at the time when the petitioner was initially appointed on 27.03.2003 on the post of Headmistress and her appointment was provisionally approved also. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.01.2012 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.