Jharkhand High Court
Bimla Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 14 August, 2023
1 L.P.A. No. 377 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 377 of 2021
Bimla Kumari, aged about 66 years, w/o Sri Arun Kumar Niraj, Lady
Health Visitor in the Office of the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary
Health Centre, Sadar Block, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Sahebganj at present
residing at 303, Shivam Apartment, Chandni Chowk, Hatia, P.O. Nift
Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal
House P.O., P.S. Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi.
2. Finance Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Secretariat, Project
Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi.
3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-
Sahebganj.
4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sadar Block, P.O.,
P.S. & Dist.-Sahebganj.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, AC to SC-III
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
09/Dated: 14th August, 2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed
against the order/judgment dated 18.08.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5559 of 2010, whereby and
whereunder, the decision as taken by the competent authority of the State
Government as contained in Memo No. 416 dated 07.03.2010 by which
monetary benefit in consequence of junior selection grade and senior
selection grade to the writ petitioner was denied on the ground that the
appellant-writ petitioner did not pass the departmental examination till the
year 1989, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ
petition.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition
which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The writ petitioner was appointed as Lady Health Visitor vide
order as contained in Memo No. 432(F) Health, Patna dated 29.01.1979.
The writ petitioner, prior to her appointment, appeared in the
Matriculation Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination in
May, 1972 in which Hindi was a compulsory subject.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that as per Clause 2 of the
Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968, all the
government servants are required to pass the Departmental Examination
within one year of appointment, if the said servant has not passed
matriculation with Hindi, as such, it was not required for the writ
petitioner to pass the said departmental examination for grant of Junior
Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that in spite of being
eligible for grant of Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 24.02.1984, the
respondents while granting Senior Selection Grade pay-scale to the
government servants, ignored the candidature of the writ petitioner and
granted selection grade pay-scale to the persons appointed/joined
subsequently to the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, made several
representations and requested the respondents to look into the mater and
grant the due promotion to the writ petitioner.
When no heed was paid to the writ petitioner's representation,
the writ petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition being
W.P.(S) No. 771 of 2006 and vide order dated 03.05.2006, the
respondents were directed to consider the representation of the writ
petitioner. Thereafter, no action having been taken, the writ petitioner
filed contempt case being Cont. Case (Cvl) No. 590 of 2006 wherein the
respondents stated that the writ petitioner's claim has been recommended
to the higher authorities vide memo no.292 dated 22.02.2007 and in view
thereof, the contempt proceeding was dropped on 26.06.2007.
Again, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing another
writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6151 of 2007 for grant of selection grade
pay-scale and vide order dated 16.09.2008, the respondents were again
directed to consider the writ petitioner's representation and pass
appropriate order. When the respondents have not paid heed to the writ
petitioner's representations again, the writ petitioner filed another
contempt petition being Cont. Case (Cvl) No. 97 of 2010.
During pendency of the said contempt application, the
respondents vide order contained in Memo No. 416 dated 07.03.2010
rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ
petitioner did not pass the Hindi Departmental Examination till the year
1989.
3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petition
while working as lady supervisor claims to have the benefit of junior
selection grade and senior selection grade from the year 1989 but the
same has been denied on the ground that in the year 1989, the appellant-
writ petitioner had not passed Hindi Noting and Drafting examination as
required. However, from the year 1991, the aforesaid benefit was granted
since the appellant-writ petitioner has passed the aforesaid examination in
the year 1991.
4. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision
of the State authority dated 07.03.2010 has approached this Court by
filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5559 of 2010 but the same has been
dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2021 which is the subject matter of the
instant appeal.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner by referring to the
Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968 enshrined
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, whereby and
whereunder, passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination has been
decided to be not required for the purpose of grant of promotion.
6. According to the writ petitioner, she was having the matriculation in
Hindi subject and on the basis of the Rules, 1968 she became entitled for
getting the benefit of Junior Selection Grade from 1984 and Senior
Selection Grade from the year 1989. But the same has been denied by
passing the impugned order.
7. The contention, therefore, has been raised that as per the requirement of
Rules, 1968 since the writ petitioner is possessing the requisite eligibility
criteria to have the benefit of Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection
Grade, therefore, the writ petitioner ought to have been granted the said
benefit but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid
aspect of the matter in right perspective and has denied to interfere with
the impugned decision of the authority, hence, the impugned order suffers
from error.
8. Per contra, Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, learned AC to SC-III appearing for the
respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the writ petitioner was
appointed as Health Lady Visitor and in view of Rule 7 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968 any appointment
shall not be confirmed unless one has passed the Hindi Noting and
Drafting Examination.
It has been contended by referring to the Rule 157(3)(j) of the
Board Miscellaneous Rules which is applicable for Class-III employees
making the mandatory condition of having passed the Hindi Noting and
Drafting Examination for the purpose of promotion to the higher post.
The writ petitioner has passed the aforesaid Hindi Noting and Drafting
Examination in the year 1991. Thereafter, the benefit of Junior Selection
Grade and Senior Selection Grade had been granted in favour of the writ
petitioner.
9. The contention has also been raised that the Rules, 1968 is of no aid to the
appellant since as per Rule 3, the requirement to pass Hindi Noting and
Drafting Examination is necessary. Herein, the appellant is in Class-III
cadre and hence, Rule 3 of the Rules, 1968 is applicable.
10. The learned State counsel on the basis of the aforesaid premise has
submitted that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact since has passed the order, therefore, the same suffers from
no error, as such, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents
available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge.
12. It appears from clause 2 that the same is with respect to Class-IV
employees whether as per the provision as contained under Rule 1968 can
one or the other employee be granted the benefit of upgradation in pay
scale either by virtue of time bound promotion or junior selectin
grade/senior selection grade.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision
as contained in Rules, 1968 is applicable so as to extend the benefit of
upgradation in pay scale.
13. It is evident from bare perusal of the clause 2 of the Rules, 1968 which
contains a requirement to pass the examination, i.e., Deonagiri Hindi Lipi
and if a candidate has passed the matriculation with Hindi, the said
employee will not have to pass the said examination. But in case an
employee if not has passed matriculation with Hindi, then within the
period of one year from his/her appointment, the requirement of passing
Hindi in Deonagiri Lipi will be held to be applicable.
14. Further it would be evident from Rule 3 that all the public servant, who
are to perform their duties of noting and drafting inclusive of preparation
of report, the requirement will be of passing the Hindi in Deonagiri Lipi
and Noting and Drafting Examination within a period one year from the
date of his/her recruitment.
15. This Court, therefore, going through the provision of Rules, 1968 is of the
view that it is not that there is no requirement to pass the Hindi Noting
and Drafting Examination.
16. Even accepting that the case of the appellant that she has passed the
matriculation examination with Hindi but since she is holding the post
wherein the requirement of discharging the duties is of Hindi Noting and
Drafting and preparation of report, therefore, apart from passing in
Deonagiri Lipi, Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is also required
to be passed as per the provision of Rule 3 of Rules, 1968 coupled with
the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1968.
17. The requirement to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination is itself
apparent from the conduct of the appellant since subsequently, i.e., in the
year 1991, she had appeared in the examination and has also passed and
thereafter, the consequential benefits by way of upgradation in the pay
scale under time bound promotion scheme as also selection grade had
been granted.
18. The benefit either by way of upgradation in the pay scale under the time
bound promotion scheme or the Junior Selection Grade and Senior
Selection Grade is also required that an employee is to pass the Hindi
Noting and Drafting Examination.
19. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and coming to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge wherefrom we have found that
the learned Single Judge has given due consideration about the
requirement of passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination as per
the statutory rule and has negated the claim of the writ petitioner about
the applicability of the Rules, 1968.
20. This Court, on consideration of the fact in entirety, is of the view that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge since is based upon thoughtful
consideration, therefore, the same according to our considered view,
needs no interference.
21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.
22. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
N.A.F.R.
