Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Ramchandra Sahu on 6 April, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.53 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 716 of 2020
With
I.A. No.717 of 2020
----
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education
& Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand,
having office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource
Development Department, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur
Division, Ranchi having office at Kali Babu Street, P.O. - G.P.O. and
P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, P.O. and P.S. - Simdega,
District - Simdega.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O. and
P.S. - Simdega, District - Simdega.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Ramchandra Sahu, son of Shri Jitnu Sahu, resident of Mohalla -
Sardega, P.O. and P.S. - Simdega, District - Simdega
... ... Respondent
With
L.P.A. No.163 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 4131 of 2020
With
I.A. No.4132 of 2020
----
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource
Development Department, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist - Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur
Division, Ranchi, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, Dist - Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O. + P.S.
+Dist - Simdega through Mrs. Mukti Rani Singh, D/o - Late R.B.
Singh, P.O. + P.S.+ Dist - Simdega.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Sudhir Beck, S/o - Late Paul Richard Beck, R/o - Mariampur,
P.O. - Gotra, P.S. - Simdega, Dist - Simdega.
2. Ram Kumar, Son of Late Kedar Prasad, Resident of - Ring Road
Mohalla, Saldega, Gandhi Maidan, P.O. + P.S. + District - Simdega.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C.(L&C)-III
For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate [LPA No.53/2020]
Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate [LPA No.163/2020]
--------
ORAL ORDER
Order No. 10 : Dated 6th April, 2021
With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been
done through video conferencing and there is no complaint
whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
2. Both the appeals since are against the common impugned
order, as such, both appeals have been directed to be heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
I.A. No. 716 of 2020 [L.P.A. No. 53 of 2020] & I.A. No. 4132 of
2020 [L.P.A. No. 163 of 2020]
3. Both these appeals have been filed after the period of limitation
and as such interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning
the delay.
4. I.A. No. 716 of 2020 has been filed for condoning the delay of
548 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 53 of 2020 and I.A. No. 4132 of
2020 has been filed for condoning the delay of 592 days in preferring
L.P.A. No. 163 of 2020.
5. Heard parties.
6. Having regard to the averments made in the interlocutory
applications and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are
of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause
in filing the appeals within the period of limitation. As such, the
delay in preferring the appeals is hereby condoned.
7. I.A. No. 716 of 2020 and I.A. No. 4132 of 2020 stand allowed.
L.P.A. No.53 of 2020 & L.P.A. No. 163 of 2020
8. Both the appeals are under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of
High Court of Judicature at Patna directed against the
order/judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2982 of 2010 and W.P.(S) No.2059 of 2010.
The subject matter of challenge in L.P.A. No. 53 of 2020 wherein the
learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the office order
dated 29th March, 2010 passed by the District Superintendent of
Education, Simdega (respondent no.5) pertaining to cancellation of
pay scale granted to the petitioner in Graduate Trained Pay Scale
with effect from 01.08.1992 and further directed for recovery of the
excess amount whereas the subject matter of challenge in L.P.A. No.
163 of 2020 wherein the learned Single Judge has quashed and set
aside the office order dated 29.03.2010 annexed as Annexure-7 to
the writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 2982 of 2010) whereby the promotion
granted to the writ petitioners in B.Sc. Trained scale on 7 th July,
1992 and 17th July, 1992 has been cancelled.
9. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated,
read as under :-
L.P.A. No. 53 of 2020
The brief facts of the instant appeal is that the writ petitioner
was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide office order dated
14.04.1988. Subsequently, the writ petitioner was granted B.Sc.
Untrained pay scale. After passing of the teacher training
examination on 09.06.1992, the writ petitioner was granted B.Sc.
Trained pay scale vide office order dated 01.08.1992, while
continuing as such, the B.Sc Trained pay scale granted to the writ
petitioner on 09.06.1992 has been cancelled by issuance of office
order dated 29.03.2010.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned
order, has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being
W.P.(S) No. 2059 of 2010, inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid
decision has been taken without following the principle of natural
justice.
Further, it has been contended before the writ court that Bihar
Government Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, 1993) could not have been
applied in the case of the writ petitioner particularly when the writ
petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and was granted B.Sc
Trained Scale on 01.08.1992 as because the aforesaid provision as
contained under Rules, 1993 even though has been given effect from
1986 but the B.Sc. Trained Scale which was given to the writ
petitioner on 01.08.1992 could not be permitted to be unsettled at
this distance of time. Furthermore, on account of the fact that the
right accrued cannot be taken away by virtue of enactment of the
Rule making it applicable with retrospective effect.
L.P.A. No. 163 of 2020
The writ petitioners were appointed in pursuance to
advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teachers in
Primary/Middle Schools under District Superintendent of Education,
Gumla, against vacant and sanctioned posts. Petitioners were found
to be eligible and as such, recommended by the District Education
Establishment Committee for appointment. Accordingly, the
petitioner no.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained
Scale though he had qualification of M.Sc., B.Ed at the time of
appointment and joined on 24.04.1988 in Government School,
Raikera in the district of Simdega. The petitioner no.1, subsequently
thereafter, was considered by the respondents for grant of B.Sc.
Trained scale with effect from the date of joining as because he was
found to have the requisite qualifications to hold the said post. The
petitioner no.1 was granted Senior Selection Grade after completion
of 12 years of service.
The petitioner no.2 was appointed as Assistant Science Teacher
being untrained having B.Sc qualification. After completion of
training, the petitioner no.2 was given B.Sc Trained scale with effect
from 17th July, 1992.
Both the writ petitioners while working as such, a complaint
was lodged by one similarly situated person and on the basis of said
complaint, documents were sought for by the respondents from the
petitioners for verification and after such verification, the impugned
order was passed on 29.03.2010 cancelling the promotion order of
the petitioners dated 7th July, 1992 and 17th July, 1992 vide
Annexure-7 to the writ application.
Both the writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid
impugned order, has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2982 of
2010 invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India agitating the ground that the
cancellation of the order of promotion vide impugned order dated
29.03.2010 is illegal and void being violative of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the respondents
could not have taken away the vested rights accrued without
following the principles of natural justice since in the instant case no
notice or show cause was issued prior to issuance of impugned
order.
It has further been agitated that the Rules, 1993 cannot be
made applicable retrospectively so as to take away accrued right and
benefit as has been decided as per the settled position of law to the
effect that if any right has been accrued, the same cannot be taken
away by making the law applicable with retrospective effect.
In both the cases counter affidavits have been filed before the
writ court by the respondent State of Jharkhand inter alia taking the
plea that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers and
not as a Science Teachers, hence without getting the appointment
letter against Science Teacher, they cannot be declared as Science
Teacher and get the benefit of Science Teacher and in that view of the
matter, the writ petitioners since have been granted the benefit of the
post of Science Teachers without having the requisite qualification as
per the provision of Rules, 1993, they cannot be allowed to continue
with the post and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of
the matter, on the basis of the complaint made by similarly situated
co-employee, when the fact has been found to be genuine on the
basis of the enquiry, the impugned order has been passed.
The writ court, after taking into consideration the rival
submission advanced on behalf of the parties and after taking into
consideration the fact that before passing the impugned order and by
directing to recover the excess amount paid in view of the aforesaid
promotion orders, the direction for recovery has been made without
following the principle of natural justice, hence the impugned orders
have been quashed against which the present intra-court appeals
have been filed.
10. After some argument, Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C.(L&C)-
III, appearing for the appellant State of Jharkhand, seeks leave to
withdraw these appeals with a liberty to initiate proceeding in
accordance with law, if they so desire or if they so advised. He further
submits that they will give sufficient opportunity to the respondents.
11. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty and observations. Consequent thereto, pending
interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad,J.)
Birendra/ A.F.R.
