Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1242 (JHR)

Baghrai Soren v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-06-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to promote the petitioner in the scale of Headmaster from the date he was entitled for that scale on the ground that the petitioner is M.A. Trained Teacher. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Assured Career Progression (for short ''ACP'') from the date he was entitled for that. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Govt. School Teacher vide memo dated 14.02.1980 in the matric trained pay-scale and since then, he was working in the said school with all sincerity and satisfaction of the Respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he has requisite qualification for promotion on the post of Headmaster as per 1993 Rules. The petitioner was granted 1st time bound promotion on 01.03.1993 and pay fixation was also done on 01.03.1996. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was entitled for promotion on the post of Headmaster and as such, he made an application before the concerned Authority and Block Education Extension Officer, Dumka in the year 2003 and the same was forwarded to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. Several other representations were filed by the petitioner in the year 2003 but the case of the petitioner was not considered and subsequently, the petitioner retired in the year 2008, on attaining the age of superannuation from the District of Dumka, as an Assistant Teacher of the Primary School, Palopisa, Anchal Raneshwar-1, district Dumka. As the case of the petitioner was not considered and no orders were passed on his representation, petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Mrs. Saroj Kumari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for promotion and monitory benefits as other similarly situated persons have been considered and granted the same. Mrs. 4. Mrs. Saroj Kumari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for promotion and monitory benefits as other similarly situated persons have been considered and granted the same. Mrs. Agrawal further argues that petitioner though has been superannuated in the year 2008 but no orders were passed on the representations of the petitioner and as such, petitioner did not approach this Court at the appropriate time and it was only after knowing that similarly situated persons have been considered, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer for condonation of delay. It was further argued that a direction may be given to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Haque draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and argues that as per Rule 6(2) of the Promotion Rules, 1993, only 20% posts of teachers working in Grade-2 scale was made available for promotion in Grade-3 scale following the reservation roster and the name of the petitioner did not find place in 20% posts reserved for promotion in Grade-3 scale from Grade-2 scale teachers and as such, rightly he was not considered and granted promotion in Grade-3 Scale. It was further argued that as per 7(3)(i) of the Promotion Rules, 1993 a seniority list was to be prepared for promotion to Grade-VI scale. It is clearly mentioned in Rule-7(3)(ii) of the Promotion Rules, 1993 that "in this list, firstly those Post Graduate Teachers who have completed minimum 12 years of service in Grade-5 shall be placed" and as such, his case was not considered. Similarly, Rule-5 of the Promotion Rules, 1993, the minimum educational and training qualification and minimum tenure of service is mandatory for promotion in Grade-3, Grade-4, Grade-6 and Grade-7 and as the petitioner was not fulfilling the said criteria, rightly his case was not considered for promotion. Merely because the petitioner is MA trained, he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Merely because the petitioner is MA trained, he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the maintainability of the writ petitioner on the ground of delay and laches and argues that the writ petition itself has been preferred after nine long years, which cannot be entertained and is fit to be dismissed in limine. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and upon considering the relevant records, it is crystal clear that a person, who does not fulfill the requisite qualification for promotion, cannot be considered for promotion. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly does not fulfill the minimum requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster and as such, rightly his case was not considered. Again, the petitioner has approached this Court after nine long years and no explanation has given for such delay. The plea of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been granted promotion also does not deserves to be considered as nothing has been mentioned that when the promotion was given to those persons. Petitioner has also approached for granting the benefits of ACP, fully knowing that teachers are not entitled for the benefits of ACP as per the policy decision of the State and the petitioner claiming promotion to the post of Headmaster, is not even aware of the Rules and as such, is not entitled for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.