The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed for quashing the order and a resolution dated 22.12.2018 of the District Establishment Committee, held that the ground taken in the impugned order that the promotion order was issued under the single signature of DEO and was not signed by the Member-Secretary of the Promotion Committee is completely misconceived and erroneous.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 05.09.1999. The petitioner passed the in-service teachers training examination in the year 2004 and was granted a Matric trained pay scale with effect from 01.10.2003. As per Rule 8 of the Bihar Rajkiyakrit Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 2011, after completing eight years of qualifying service in the Matric trained pay scale the petitioner became eligible for promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher in the year 2011. The petitioner along with several similarly situated persons including his juniors qualified for promotion to Graduate Trained Teacher on the basis of a cut-off date of 31.12.2012, however, the petitioner was the only one who was denied the benefit of promotion. The appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of with directions for the redressal of the petitioner’s grievances but nothing happened.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that resolution no. 4 of the minutes of the District Primary Teachers Establishment Committee meeting dated 22.12.2018 is void ab initio since the District Primary Teachers Establishment Committee based on the notification dated 21.03.2018 had rejected the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that as per the said notification, the promotion order cannot be issued under a single signature.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the promotion of the petitioner was issued under the single signature of the District Education Officer, whereas in terms of Rule 13 of the Promotion Rules, 2018 the promotion order had to be issued under the joint signature of the Member Secretary of the Promotion Committee and the District Education Officer.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that after the petitioner was denied promotion under the Promotion Rules, 2011, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority and his appeal was allowed. Consequently, a promotion order was issued.
The Court observed that the order of promotion of the petitioner thus was issued under the direction of a quasi-judicial authority as such the ground taken in the impugned order that the promotion order was issued under the single signature of DEO and was not signed by the Member-Secretary of the Promotion Committee is completely misconceived and erroneous. Further, regarding the objection of the State respondents that the petitioner passed his B.A. examination during the service period in the year 2001, the Court said that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order dated 03.01.2019 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9049 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Namrata Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
