Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 892 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The transfer and postings under the Government of Jharkhand are normally effected in the month of May-June and November-December as per its policy. As has been seen, such transfers also lead to spate of litigation, which come before this Court. Some are genuine and some are frivolous. These two matters also arise out of transfer exercise undertaken by the Respondent, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Notification no. 152 dated 25th June, 2015. 3. Petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar Roy in W.P.(S) no. 2927 of 2015 has been transferred from the post of District Education Officer, Koderma to the post of Principal, Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi vide Memo no. 152 of the same date. He, of course, belongs to Education Service Class-I and was posted at Koderma by the previous notification dated 27th June, 2014. In place of this petitioner, respondent no. 6, namely, Prem Prakash Jha was posted from his previous place of posting as Lecturer at Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi. Respondent no. 6 was last posted as Lecturer in the said college vide notification issued in December, 2012 and he joined on 10th January, 2013. 4. Petitioner, namely, Smt. Aruna Nath in W.P.(S) No. 2773 of 2015 has been transferred by the same notification bearing Memo no. 153 as Lecturer in Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi from the post of Principal in the same college, which she was holding after being posted there on 27th June, 2014. This petitioner belongs to Jharkhand Education Service Class-II. 5. Both the writ petitioners have their own grounds to challenge the impugned order of transfer, common of them being that they have been shifted within one year from their last transfer. Apart from that petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy has other ground to urge that Jharkhand Education Service Rules, 2015 lays down a particular grade of pay and hierarchy of post which has not been followed in placing the petitioner as Principal of Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi, which stream belongs to the Teaching Branch while petitioner belongs to Inspecting Branch. It is also his contention that for the post of Principal, he does not fulfill the NCTE requirement as he is only B.Sc. It is also his contention that for the post of Principal, he does not fulfill the NCTE requirement as he is only B.Sc. Petitioner, Smt. Aruna Nath has her other grounds to urge i.e., she fulfills the requirement of NCTE Guidelines for being posted as Principal of Government Teachers' Training College, Ranchi being a Post Graduate with M.Ed, and Ph.D There is no reason for the respondents to shift her3.in the same college from the post of Principal to Lecturer within one year. She has also given the dates of her previous transfer to show that she has been shifted within one year or six months, one after the other. Petitioner Sushil Kumar Roy is impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2773 of 2015 preferred by petitioner, Smt. Aruna Nath as he has been posted in her place. 6. On an earlier date while granting time to the Respondent-State an order of status quo was passed in both the cases, as the petitioners alleged that they would be relieved unilaterally by 10th July, 2015. The private respondent no. 6, Prem Prakash Jha in W.P.(S) No. 2927 of 2015 was noticed and has also appeared and filed his counter affidavit. His case is that he has submitted his joining on 9th July 2015 in terms of the impugned notification with which he is not aggrieved as he has also completed more or less two and half years of his posting as Lecturer in the said Government Teachers' Training College, Ranchi. It is also stated on his behalf that he was not aware of the order of status quo passed on 9th July 2015 in the case of Sushil Kumar Roy in W.P.S. No. 2927 of 2015 by this Court at the time of submitting his joining as District Education Officer, Koderma on 9th July 2015 itself as per the stipulation contained in the transfer notification. 7. The Respondent-State have taken a number of pleas to contest the case of two petitioners. It has been urged on their part that 2015 Rules have not been given effect to as separate rules for the three Branches for Teaching, Inspecting and Training are being formulated. It is also their case that Class I & Class II post held by persons in Jharkhand Education Service are interchangeable post as the cadres have not yet been finalized for different branches. It is also their case that Class I & Class II post held by persons in Jharkhand Education Service are interchangeable post as the cadres have not yet been finalized for different branches. Some incumbents are posted as Lecturer or Principal of Government Teachers Training College as per Administrative requirement and in public interest and sometime the same officer has to be posted in the field as District Education Officer or District Superintendent of Education or any other4.commensurate post. These two petitioners and the respondent no. 6 in W.P.(S) No. 2927 of 2015 have also been working in one or the other post, whether it is teaching branch or inspecting branch. According to the respondents, the NCTE Guidelines laying down requirement for teaching post could not be followed in strict sense at the moment as many of the incumbents have joined services much before the enforcement of NCTE Act with effect from 1995. Therefore, that plea is not a sustainable legal ground to impugn the placement of one or the other petitioners' to the field or Government Teachers Training College. 8. Having given anxious hearing and considerable thought to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties, this Court finds that in the case of both these petitioners, the impugned transfers had been effected within one year of their posting. The respondents had sought to justify the transfer on administrative grounds beyond which nothing more has been stated in their counter affidavit. It appears that petitioner, Smt. Aruna Nath had remained for only one year as a Principal in Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi and as she claims, she is also having qualification of Principal under NCTE Guidelines. It is also found that the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy has also been only for a period of one year at Koderma before being shifted by the impugned order as Principal of Government Teachers' Training College, Ranchi in place of petitioner, Smt. Aruna Nath. 9. When being specifically asked, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V on behalf of State sought to justify the impugned transfer on the grounds that the Establishment Committee at the department level had considered individual cases and the order of transfer were effected on administrative grounds. 9. When being specifically asked, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V on behalf of State sought to justify the impugned transfer on the grounds that the Establishment Committee at the department level had considered individual cases and the order of transfer were effected on administrative grounds. On such plea being taken, counsel for the Respondent-State was allowed to produce the records relating to Establishment Committee and assist this Court, whether there were any administrative reasons on record in the materials placed before the Establishment Committee. Learned counsel for the State after going through the relevant records and on the basis of specific instructions from the concerned respondent authorities of Human Resources Development Department submitted that there are adequate administrative reasons for the Establishment Committee to transfer the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy from the post of District Education Officer, Koderma to Government Teachers Training College, Ranchi as Principal. Since the said petitioner was to be posted somewhere else, Smt. Aruna Nath had to be shifted from the post of Principal as she belongs to Class-II service while the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy belongs to Class-I service under Jharkhand Education Service. Apart from that learned counsel for Respondent-State fairly submits that there was no supplementary reason to shift the petitioner, Smt. Aruna Nath for the present. However, the respondent no.6, Prem Prakash Jha, since he had completed his tenure, was shifted in place of petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy, with which he is not aggrieved. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent-State that in such circumstances, the respondent authorities are inclined to reconsider the matter relating to transfer of both the petitioners. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the grounds urged on behalf of Respondent-State, the matter is remanded to Respondent, Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for taking an appropriate decision in the matter of posting of these two writ petitioners, of course, after observance of the procedure laid down under the department Circulars/Rules. The respondent department would take a decision on the aforesaid matter within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till then the respondent authorities would maintain status quo in respect of petitioner Smt. Aruna Nath keeping into regard the order of status quo passed during the pendency of the writ petition. Since the respondent no. Till then the respondent authorities would maintain status quo in respect of petitioner Smt. Aruna Nath keeping into regard the order of status quo passed during the pendency of the writ petition. Since the respondent no. 6, Prem Prakash Jha had proceeded to submit joining on6.the post of District Education Officer, Koderma on 9th July 2015 pursuant to his transfer by the notification dated 25th June 2015, as he was not aware of the order of status quo, his joining would be accepted at Koderma by the respondents authorities. The respondent department would take a decision in respect of the period spent by the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Roy from 10th July, 2015 till an appropriate order is passed for his posting. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. Consequently, pending I.A. stands closed.