Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1035 (PAT)

Anuja v. State of Bihar

2018-07-11

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. 2. Since common question of facts and law are involved in these three writ application, with the counsel of the counsel for the parties, all the three writ applications are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 15874 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20627 of 2010 and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 15635 of 2010, whereby the promotion granted to the petitioners in Graduate Trained Scale was cancelled in the light of the Departmental letter nos. 1416 and 1417 dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure-17). 4. Ms. M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order as contained in Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 15874 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20627 of 2010 and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 15635 of 2010 is nullity in the eye of law, as the order was passed without compliance of natural justice. She further submits that the departmental letter nos. 1416 and 1417 dated 21.05.2010 cannot be made a ground to nullify the promotion granted to the petitioner vide Annexure-1. She submits that pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 12.08.2008 in C.W.J.C.587 of 2005 (Rasendra Narayan Singh v. The State of Bihar and others), the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners and others for grant of promotion and vide Annexure-1, the petitioners and others were not only promoted in Graduate Trained Scale, but they were posted as Graduate Trained Teacher in different Rajkiya Ambedkar Residential High School. It appears that many of the teachers were granted notional promotion from the date anterior to the promotion vide letter date 12.06.2010 (Annexure-1). 5. So far as the orders impugned Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 15874 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20627 of 2010 and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 15635 of 2010 are concerned, the Court finds substance in the submission of Ms. Chatterjee that order of cancellation was passed without compliance of natural justice, as such the order was illegal and unsustainable. The right accrued in favour of the petitioners pursuant to Annexure-1 was nullified without compliance of principles of natural justice i.e. without notice and hearing and as such it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Chatterjee that order of cancellation was passed without compliance of natural justice, as such the order was illegal and unsustainable. The right accrued in favour of the petitioners pursuant to Annexure-1 was nullified without compliance of principles of natural justice i.e. without notice and hearing and as such it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of H.L. Trehan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 568 . 6. The other submission of Ms. Chetterjee that once the selection process has commenced pursuant to the direction of this Court, the subsequent decision taken vide annexure-17 cannot be used to nullify the promotion granted to the petitioners, as the law in this regard is well settled that subsequent change will not adversely affect the promotion granted to the petitioners pursuant to the selection process prior to amendment. This Court has occasion to examine the similar issue in C.W.J.C. No. 20754 of 2010 with only difference in the case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 20754 of 2010 that they were granted promotion, whereas the petitioners of this batch of writ applications were not granted promotion and their promotion was nullified vide Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 15874 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20627 of 2010 and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 15635 of 2010. While disposing of the writ application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 20754 of 2010, this Court has passed the following orders: "In view of the discussion made above the Court is of the view that the respondent should consider the case of the petitioners for grant of graduate trained scale if the petitioners answers the eligibility for grant of such promotion that they will take promotion as prescribed under the Rule for grant of such graduate trained scale by the Human Resources Development Department and if it is found that the petitioners' answer the eligibility for grant of such promotion as prescribed under the Rule prescribed for teachers in the Education Department. The same should be extended to the petitioners also notwithstanding Annexure-11, fresh decision on the claim of the petitioners may be taken by the respondent for grant of graduate trained pay scale within a maximum period of four months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. The same should be extended to the petitioners also notwithstanding Annexure-11, fresh decision on the claim of the petitioners may be taken by the respondent for grant of graduate trained pay scale within a maximum period of four months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Annexure-11 will not come in the way of respondent considering and granting graduate trained scale to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary recommendation was already submitted by the District Welfare Officer, if that is so respondent may take appropriate decision within time frame indicated above. Wit the aforesaid the writ application stands disposed of." 7. Considering the totality of the facts situation, this Court finds substance in the submission of Ms. Chetterjee that right accrued in favour of the petitioners pursuant to selection process started prior to amendment in the procedure cannot be nullified on the ground of subsequent change, accordingly, all the writ applications are allowed. The order as contained in Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 15874 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20627 of 2010 and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 15635 of 2010 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit arising out of Annexure-1 to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands allowed.