Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2564 (JHR)

Manoranjan Pradhan, s/o Sri Ravichanddra Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand

2018-11-27

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2018
ORDER : 1. Instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein promotion has been sought for by the petitioner in Grade-III scale. 2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State-respondent wherein at paragraph nos.16 and 17 the stand has been taken which are being referred herein-below:- “16. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-17 to 20, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are as per orders of the State of Jharkhand, a list of Assistant Teacher who are eligible for getting Grade-III scale has been prepared and the same has been put up in a meeting held on 28.01.2016 before the District Education Establishment Committee, Seraikela-Kharsawan, and after due examination and considering the entire material available in the record, the aforesaid high level Committee has been pleased to grant Grade-III scale to 816 Assistant Teachers with certain conditions vide memo no.279 dated 05.03.2016 which has been circulated to all concerned authorities. The name of the petitioner is appearing in serial no.193 of the aforesaid memo dated 05.03.2016. 17. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after grant of Grade-III scale, all their consequential benefits including difference of pay scale has been paid to the concerned Assistant Teachers. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the respondents in these paragraphs are not correct and the same are denied by the answering respondents.” 3. Thus, it is evident from the stand taken by the respondent that the case of the petitioner along with 816 Assistant Teachers has been considered under which petitioner's name is appearing at serial no.193 and the consequential benefit has also been extended to the petitioner. 4. Thus, in view of statement made in paragraph nos.16 and 17 of the counter affidavit the prayer of the petitioner made in this writ petition has already been complied with and as such nothing remains to be adjudicated and hence, this writ petition is rendered to be in-fructuous and accordingly stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.