Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2175 (JHR)

Ravindra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-01

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this court for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his posting as Postgraduate Trained Teacher in K.N.+2 High School, Ichak, Hazaribagh in the light of the decision taken by the respondent-authorities in the meeting dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-2), as the petitioner is posted and working as Assistant Teacher in K.N. +2 High School, Ichak, Hazaribagh. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that other similarly situated persons have been considered and allowed to continue in the same school where they were earlier working as Assistant Teacher. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School on 06.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in K.N. High School, Ichak in the district of Hazaribagh, since then he has been discharging his duty in the said school. It is the further case of the petitioner that an advertisement was floated for appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in the year, 2016 by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner having requisite qualification, applied for the same and appeared in the selection process and also qualified for the same. An appointment letter was issued under the pen and signature of the respondent No.2 to him on 14.11.2017. From the appointment letter itself, it was made clear that petitioner will join as an Postgraduate Trained Teacher in K.B.S.S+2 High School, Choupara, Hazaribagh. The petitioner soon thereafter, made a representation before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case for allowing him to continue in the same school in view of their own decision, which was taken on meeting dated 13.11.2017 for accommodating the teachers, who are discharging their duties as an Assistant Teacher in their own school as Postgraduate Trained Teacher, but no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Secretary of the Department, mentioning therein that other similarly situated teachers have been allowed to continue in the same school and the petitioner has been discriminated. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Secretary of the Department, mentioning therein that other similarly situated teachers have been allowed to continue in the same school and the petitioner has been discriminated. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of the Department gave a direction to the respondent-Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of equal treatment as similarly situated persons have been considered and allowed to continue in the same school in which they were discharging their duties, but till date no decision has been taken by the respondent-Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to move before this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department, the petitioner is entitled for posting in the same school where he was discharging his duties, as similarly situated persons have been allowed to continue to work in the same school as Postgraduate Trained Teacher in view of the resolution /decision of the State. Learned counsel further argues that it is a case of hostile discrimination as the respondents cannot adopt pick and choose method. As the similarly situated persons have been already allowed to continue, therefore, the petitioner is seeking intervention of this Hon'ble Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider their own resolution/decision and also direction of the Secretary of the Department. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was selected as a Postgraduate Trained Teacher on 01.07.2016 by the Staff Selection Commission and in appointment letter itself, there was a direction to the petitioner to join the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in a different school i.e. KBSS +2 High School, Chowparan, Hazaribagh within same district. The petitioner has no right to continue in the same school in which he is discharging his duties as Assistant Teacher, in view of the appointment letter. The petitioner ought to have joined the new place of posting. Learned counsel further argues that whenever, any teacher is appointed in any district, he should be ready for his transfer within the same district, but in a different block. The petitioner ought to have joined the new place of posting. Learned counsel further argues that whenever, any teacher is appointed in any district, he should be ready for his transfer within the same district, but in a different block. There is no reason to interfere with such transfer, which is based upon administrative exigency and public need and this aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 3890 of 2016 vide order dated 26.07.2016, which was affirmed upto the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. Taking regards to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, no interference is warranted and as such, a direction may be given upon the petitioner to join the place of posting. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, it was mentioned in the order of appointment itself that petitioner is to join at the place of posting on a different school to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher, but the petitioner immediately after receiving the letter of appointment made representation before the respondents-authorities. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Department has directed the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for posting, taking into consideration equal treatment, which has been given to other similarly situated teachers. In para 13 of the writ petition, averments have been made to that effect that several persons have been asked to remain in the same school in which they were working earlier, but in the counter-affidavit, nothing has been mentioned and no reply has been filed regarding the averments made in para 13 of the writ petition. The petitioner has not challenged the order of transfer, the reliance of the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is not at all applicable in the instant case. It is clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that the petitioner was directed to join new assignment on 18.12.2017 and respondents had to relieve the petitioner within three days, which is reflected from Clause 3 & 4 of the appointment letter. But the petitioner is continuing on the same post in the same school where he was working prior to his appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher. But the petitioner is continuing on the same post in the same school where he was working prior to his appointment to the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher. He is discharging his duties in the same school, which was accepted by the respondents. It was duty of the respondents-authorities to relieve the petitioner to let him join his new assignment as a Postgraduate Trained Teacher. The respondents have themselves allowed the petitioner to continue on the same post in the same school. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and as no decision has been taken till date by the respondents on the pending representation of the petitioner, I hereby direct the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the recommendation made by the Secretary of the Department and to pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.