Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1094 (JHR)

Gunadhar Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-05-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing upon the respondents to consider the approval of the post of Headmaster and for direction to the respondents to fix the pay on the post of Headmaster as per the pay scale for the period of 1998 onwards. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of differential amount for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 with statutory interest @ 9% till payment. 2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1966 in the respondent no.3 school and thereafter qualified B.Ed examination in 1974 and M.A examination in 1978, thereafter the pay of the petitioner was revised and pay was fixed in the year 1982. In the year, 1991 the petitioner was granted time bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1986 and accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed. In view of the vacancy on the post of Headmaster, the managing committee of the school vide its resolution dated 25.01.1998 appointed the petitioner vide letter dated 27.01.1998 as Headmaster of the school and the outgoing Headmaster handed over the charges to the petitioner and after taking charge of the post of Headmaster, the petitioner continued to discharge the duty on the said post. During his continuance in the post of Headmaster, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 12.05.2003 recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent no.1 for approval. But the said recommendation of the respondent no.2 failed to evoke any response of the respondent no.1 and in the process, the petitioner was made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2004. Since the office of respondent no.1 failed to act on the recommendation of the respondent no.2 for approval of the services of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster, the petitioner is entitled for the deemed approval for the post of Headmaster and entitled for the differential pay for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 with consequential service benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no.1 the petitioner has been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no.1 the petitioner has been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that inaction on the part of the respondent no.1 over recommendation made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 has resulted in deemed approval on the post of Headmaster which the petitioner served for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 on the basis of resolution of the managing committee of respondent no.3. Learned counsel further submits that the stony silence on the part of the respondent no.1 to act on the recommendation of the respondent no.3 who is competent authority under law for passing a resolution to fill up the vacant post of Headmaster cannot be legally justified so as to put the petitioner''s services into uncertainty. In order to buttress her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.07.2012 wherein the circular dated 21.07.1983 issued by Director of Primary Education, Bihar which interalia envisages that the recommendation is to be made by the District Education Officer to the respondent no.1 i.e. Director, Higher Education for approval within a period of one month failing which it shall be deemed to have been approved. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 wherein it has been submitted that vide letter dated 02.04.2011 Director, Secondary Education i.e. respondent no.1 informed that an objection was made by the committee in respect of proposal of the petitioner that his promotion has been given effect from the year, 1998 but the proposal for the same made in the year, 2003. It has further been submitted that decision for regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.02.1998 was taken by the school managing committee in its meeting held on 30.03.2003 as evident from the letter dated 09.12.2011 of the Secretary of the respondent no.3 school as per Annexure-G to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that decision for regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.02.1998 was taken by the school managing committee in its meeting held on 30.03.2003 as evident from the letter dated 09.12.2011 of the Secretary of the respondent no.3 school as per Annexure-G to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that as per the explanation duly intimated to the Director, Secondary Education vide letter dated 03.01.2012 as evident from Annexure-H to the counter-affidavit indicates that after lapse of more than 5 years due to internal difference in the formation of the present body "Shiksha Samity", Jamshedpur, there has been delay in recommending the case of the petitioner for approval on the post of Headmaster. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit, has submitted that there has been inordinate delay of 6 years in approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and writ petition on that score is not maintainable. 6. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the pleadings and relevant records, the case of the petitioner merits reconsideration due to the following facts and reasons:- (I) Admittedly, the petitioner has requisite qualification to hold the post of Headmaster and in the year, 1998 a resolution was conveyed by the respondent no.3 school to fill up the vacant post of Headmaster and accordingly, due to the resolution, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Headmaster and took over the charge from outgoing Headmaster. During his continuance on the post of Headmaster, the petitioner made an application to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.2 but the said representation did not yield any result and due to such callous and indifferent attitude of the respondents, petitioner suffered since his services was not approved on the post of Headmaster till his retirement i.e. 31.01.2004. (II) Because of the lackadaisical and indifferent attitude of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer therefore, the petitioner''s case deserves to be reconsidered for promotion and approval on the post of Headmaster alongwith consequential service benefits 7. (II) Because of the lackadaisical and indifferent attitude of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer therefore, the petitioner''s case deserves to be reconsidered for promotion and approval on the post of Headmaster alongwith consequential service benefits 7. In view of the reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs and as logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ petition to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for approval on the post of Headmaster for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 in accordance with law and the decision be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ communication of the order. The decision taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.