Jeevan Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3978 Jhar

                                       1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(S) No. 3448 of 2011
        Jeevan Murmu                                 ..... Petitioner
                                Versus
        1. The State of Jharkhand
        2. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources, Department
           of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Dhurwa, Post Office & Police
           Station-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
        3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
           Establishment Committee, Deoghar, Post Office & Police
           Station- Deoghar, District- Deoghar.
        4. District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, Post Office &
           Police Station- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
                                                     ..... Respondents
                                ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to GP-V

--------

08/ 25.10.2021 Heard through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent

authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner as Headmaster

from the date his juniors were granted Grade-IV Scale w.e.f.

15.06.2002 on completion of 12 years of service in Grade-II and

for subsequent due promotions as per Promotion Rules, 1993.

3. After some argument, Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that his case may be remitted

back to the concerned authorities or the petitioner may be given

liberty to approach the concerned respondent who shall take a

fresh decision in the light of the judgment passed in the case of

Ram Nath Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar and Others with

analogous cases reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 384 and also the

Bihar Taken over Elementary School Teachers Promotion

Rules, 1993 which came into force and is applicable in the case

of this petitioner.

4. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the

respondent State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and

submits that petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the post of

Headmaster. However, if the petitioner will file a fresh

representation making his claim before the respondent No.2; the

respondent No.2 in consultation with respondent No.4 shall take

a decision in the matter.

5. In view of the limited submissions of learned

counsel for the parties, without going into merit of this case, the

instant writ application, is, hereby disposed of by giving liberty

to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the

respondent No.2 making his claim for promotion to the post of

Headmaster within a period of 8 weeks from today. The moment

fresh representation will be received by respondent No.2; he will

take a decision and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the

representation.

Since the matter is very old, the entire exercise shall

be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of

receipt of such representation.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Pramanik/