Jharkhand High Court
Jaleshwar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2285 of 2020
1. Jaleshwar Thakur, Aged about - 58 years, S/o. Late Shambhu Nath
Thakur, R/o. Komaltola, Sakrogarh, P.O. and P.S. - Sahibganj,
District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
2. Kalu Yadav, Aged about - 59 years, S/o. Ram Ganesh Yadav, R/o.
Kamaltola, Sakrogarh, P.O. and P.S. - Sahibganj, District -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
3. Raj Shekhar Jha, Aged about - 55 years, S/o. late Surendra Jha,
R/o. Chhota Pachgarh, Jirwabari, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S.-Jirwabari,
District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
4. Gopi Nath Jha, Aged about - 57 years, S/o. late Shreedhar Jha,
R/o. Chandrakala Niwas, Chaiti Durga, Choudhary Colony, P.O.
and P.S.- Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
5. Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Aged about - 58 years, S/o. Hari Narayan
Choudhary, R/o. Chhota Pachgarh, Jirwabari, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S.
- Jirwabari, District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
6. Ramashish Yadav, Aged about - 58 years, S/o late Kedarnath
Yadav, R/o. Talbanna, P.O. and P.S. - Sahibganj, District -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
7. Rekha Kumari Jha, Aged about - 57 years, W/o. Laxmi Narayan
Mishra, R/o. Near S.D.O. Kothi, A.R. Kidwai Path, Sakroarh, P.O.
and P.S,. - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
8. Renu Thakur, Aged about - 55 years, W/o. Mithilesh Kumar Jha,
R/o. Nayatola, Habibpur, P.O. and P.S. - Sahibganj, District -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
9. Bindu Kumari, Aged about - 55 years, W/o. Brahmadeo Yadav,
R/o. Choti Jirwabari, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. - Jirwabari, Dsitrict -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
10.Dilip Kumar Sah, Aged about - 59 years, S/o. Late Mohan Sah,
R/o. Vill. Choti Kodarjanna, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. Sahibganj
(mufassil), District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Directorate of Primary
Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa,
P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, P.O. and P.S. - Sahibganj, District -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, P.O. and P.S. -
Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
06/29.06.2022
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners along with Mr. Aman Shekahr, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State of Jharkhand.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the
respondents to immediately and forthwith grant promotion
to the petitioners to grade IV which has accrued to the
petitioners on account of completion of 8 years of service
in grade I.
And/Or
(ii) Further prays for issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the
respondents to immediately and forthwith calculate and
grant all the arrears of salary that would accrue to the
petitioners on account of his promotion to grade IV,
And/Or
(iii) For further issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to calculate and make
payments of all the arrears alongwith interest,
And/Or
(iv) For a further direction calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to under what authority of law they have
adopted a pick and choose method while granting the
grade IV to various teachers in Sahibganj district and also
state the reasons for discriminating the case of the
petitioner from the other similarly situated teachers as well
as juniors who have been granted grade-IV.
And/Or
(v) For further issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice."
Arguments of the Petitioners
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioner is governed by the Rules of promotion namely Bihar Taken
Over Elementary School Teachers' Promotion Rules, 1993
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Promotion Rules of 1993') and as per
the rules of promotion, the petitioners are entitled to Grade 4 upon
completion of 8 years of service in Grade 1 and then to Grade 7 upon
completion of 5 years of service in Grade 4.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were
appointed in the year 1998 and the details of appointment of the
petitioners have been mentioned in paragraph 6 to 15 of the writ
petition. The learned counsel submits the petitioners were duly
qualified at the time of appointment. He further submits that in terms
of letter contained in Memo No. 847 dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure-2),
the petitioners along with others were granted Grade-1 from their
initial date of joining and such order was passed pursuant to direction
issued by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 638/2006. The learned counsel
further submits that taking into consideration the date of appointment,
as already decided by the respondents, the petitioners were entitled to
grant promotion as per the aforesaid Rules of 1993, but in spite of
repeated representations before the District Superintendent of
Education, Sahibganj, the grievance of the petitioners was not
redressed. He submits that one such representation has been annexed
as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is dated 12.02.2020.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that similarly situated
teachers had filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5188/2004, which
was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-4).
The learned counsel submits that as the respondents are not adhering
to the Promotion Rules of 1993 in spite of repeated representations,
the present writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.
Arguments of the Respondents
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on
the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of
the petitioners is not similarly situated as that of the petitioners in
W.P. (S) No. 5188/2004 and for this a specific statement has been
made in the counter-affidavit. He also submits that it has been stated
in pargraph-14 of the counter-affidavit that a gradation list has been
published recently and the concerned respondent has invited
objections, if any, for promotion. The learned counsel submits that
unless the gradation list is finalized, the petitioners cannot be granted
promotion as prayed for by them.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that on account of
Memo No. 6752 dated 24.12.2020 annexed as Annexure-A to the
counter-affidavit, there has been a general stay of promotion and
therefore, there is a legal impediment in granting promotion to the
petitioners as prayed for.
Rejoinder argument of the Petitioners
9. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a
judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S). No.1390 of 2021 with
other analogous cases and has referred to para 34 thereof wherein the
said Memo No.6752 dated 24.12.2020 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand has been quashed and set aside
and as a result, a direction has been issued to the concerned Head of
the Departments to grant promotion to the petitioners of those cases,
whose case were considered for promotion by the Departmental
Promotion Committee. The learned counsel also submits that in view
of the aforesaid judgment, the general order as contained in Memo
No.6752 dated 24.12.2020 does not exist anymore as it has been
quashed by this Court. The learned counsel has also submitted that he
is not aware as to whether the seniority list of the petitioners and other
similarly situated persons has so far been finalized or not.
Findings of this Court
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the seniority list has not yet been finalized regarding which
objection has been called for and the respondents have taken a specific
stand that the case of the petitioners is not similar situated as that of
the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 5188/2004. This Court is of the
considered view that preparation of seniority list is a condition
precedent for grant of promotion as claimed by the petitioners. This
Court also finds that in view of the judgment passed by this Court in
W.P. (S) No. 1390/2021 with other analogous cases, the general order
staying promotion as contained in Memo No.6752 dated 24.12.2020
has already been quashed and therefore, there is no legal impediment
on the part of the respondents to proceed with finalization of seniority
list and considering the claim of the petitioners for promotion.
11. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent No.-4 to take appropriate steps, so that
the seniority list of the petitioners and similar situated persons is
finalized, if not already finalized, in accordance with law, but not later
than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
respondent No.-4 is also directed to take up the matter of promotion of
eligible persons in terms of the aforesaid Rules of 1993 and as per law
taking into consideration all the relevant, circulars, notifications etc.
and such exercise should also be completed not later than 6 months
from the date of finalization of the seniority list. .
12. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order, the
records of this case and also the judgment passed by this Court in
W.P. (S) No. 1390 of 2021 before the respondents No.4 along with the
representation.
13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
