Jharkhand High Court
Pramod Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1712 of 2023
1. Pramod Prasad, son of late Brijnandan Prasad, aged about 62 years, retired
District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, resident of village
Mundipur, P.O. Ranipur, P.S. Aungari, District Nalanda (Bihar)
2. Kameshwar Singh, son of late Ramashray Singh, aged about 59 years,
presently posted Area Education Officer, Bundu, P.O. & P.S. Bundu,
District Ranchi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy,
Govt. of Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of
Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
---
th
07/7 May 2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"i) For direction upon the respondents to modify/delete clause 3 of
Notification contain in Memo No. 64 dated 16.06.2012 [Annexure-3]
issued under the pen and signature of Deputy Secretary, School
Education and Literacy Department (earlier as Human Resources
Development Depratment), Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby though the
petitioners have been promoted from Sub-Ordinate Education Service
Cadre (Primary Branch) to State Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting
Branch), but instead of granting such promotion with effect from the date
of vacancy, it has been said that benefit of promotion shall be extended
from the date of joining.
ii) For direction upon the respondent to promote the petitioners from the
date of vacancy or from the date, the juniors to the petitioners have been
promoted from Sub-ordinate Education Service Cadre (Primary Branch)
to State Education Service, Class-II (Inspecting Branch).
iii) To hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled for the same
benefits as has been given to other similarly situated persons by
Notification contained in Memo No. 64 dated 16.06.2012 [Annexure-3]
issued by the Deputy Secretary, HRD, Govt. of Jharkhand.
And/Or
Pass such other Order or Orders as Your Lordships may deem fit to do
proper and conscionable justice to the petitioner."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the
petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A.
No. 57 of 2019 decided on 14.11.2019 whereby the judgment passed by this
Court in W.P. (S) No. 5410 of 2010 dated 30.01.2018 has been upheld.
4. The learned counsel has also submitted that pursuant to the judgment
passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 57 of 2019, follow up orders have been
issued in the year 2021 and 2022. He submits that the petitioners are entitled to
similar relief which flows from the judgement passed by this court and follow
up orders contained in Memo No. 1124 dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure 6) and in
Memo No. 1987 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure-7) of the writ petition. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled for the promotion
against the available vacancies in terms of Annexure-2 of the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed
the prayer of the writ petitioners and has submitted that the petitioners are not
entitled to the relief as the writ petition suffers from delay and latches which
has been filed after 13 years from the date of issuance of promotion
notification.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the writ petition has been
opposed only on the ground of delay and latches and there is no indication in
the counter-affidavit that the case of the petitioners is different in any manner
from the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 57 of 2019.
7. This Court finds that the issue regarding promotion was subject matter of
considering with respect to other persons and got settled only by the judgment
passed in L.P.A. No. 57 of 2019 dated 14.11.2019 and follow up orders were
passed vide Memo No. 1124 dated 17.06.2021 and Memo No. 1987 dated
18.08.2022 as contained in Annexure-6 and Annexure-7 respectively of the
writ petition whereby clause-3 of the Notification No. 160 dated 15.09.2010
has been deleted and promotion against available vacancy has been directed to
be given.
8. This Court is of the considered view that when a particular clause of the
notification has been ultimately deleted then it was the duty of the respondents
to extend similar benefit to all identically situated persons.
9. This Court also finds that the follow orders ultimately has been issued
only in the year 2021 and 2022 and therefore the stand of the respondents that
the case of the petitioners suffers from delay and latches is hereby rejected.
10. The respondent No. 3 is directed to extent similar treatment to the
petitioners as has been extended to the respondents-writ petitioners in L.P.A.
No. 57 of 2019 within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order.
11. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order and a copy of the writ
records before the respondent No. 3 for compliance.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
