Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sundar Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2763 of 2008
------
Shyam Sundar Mahato, son of late Madhusudan Mahato, Acting
Headmaster, Bengali Girls High School, Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S.
Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, and residing
at Asantalia, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum,
Chaibasa (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary (Secondary
Education), Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, HEC Area,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources
Development Department, Telephone Bhawan, HEC, Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division,
Chaibasa.
4. The District Education Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
5. Smt. Bina Bhengra.
... ... Respondents
WITH
------
Yudhisthir Mahto, son of late Nilkanth Mahto, Acting Headmaster,
Rajasthan Vidya Mandir High School, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District
East Singhbhum, presently residing at Village Musribera, P.O.
Khunti, Thana Chandil, District Saraikella Kharsawan.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary (Secondary
Education), Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, HEC Area,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources
Development Department, Telephone Bhawan, HEC, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
------
Bairagi Oraon @ Bargi Oraon, son of late Mangra Oraon, resident of
Village Burhu, P.O. Belagara, P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Office at
Telephone Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The District Education Officer, Ranchi.
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
------
08/ 15.01.2025
By way of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have
sought for following reliefs:-
"this is a writ petition for issuance of an
appropriate writ/writs direction/direction directing
the respondents to promote the petitioner on the
post of Headmaster of Nationalised High School
after considering his seniority and eligibility
against the vacancy occurred prior to 05.11.2004
in view of the provisions of the service condition
Rules 1983 with all consequential benefits of
promotion and further for quashing of an order as
contained in memo no.1397 dated 21.05.2008
issued by the Respondent No.-2, by which a
Junior teacher has been promoted and posted
against the petitioner without considering the
claim of the petitioner by issuing an appropriate
writ or at least stay the posting of the respondent
no.-5 till the disposal of this case or one pending
case bearing W.P.(S) No.7822 of 2006."
"this is an application for quashing of an order as
contained in Memo No.-1397/Ranchi dated
21.05.2008 issued under the signature of
Director, Secondary Education (Resp. No.-2), by
which the 175 Junior Assistant Teachers have
been promoted against the vacancy occurred
prior to promulgation of New Rule 2004 violating
the Rules & Regulations of the Department and
Orders/Judgment of the Hon'ble Court and
further prays for staying at least the posting of
those Junior Assistant Teachers mentioned in the
impugned order dated 21.05.2005 against the
total post of 488 which occurred prior to
promulgation of the new Rules till the disposal of
W.P.(S) No.7822 of 2006, which has been
reserved for final judgment on 05.02.2008, by
issuing an appropriate writ."
"by means of this writ application the petitioner
humbly prays for issuance of appropriate
writ/order/direction, directing the respondents,
particularly Respondent No.2, the Director
Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, to
promote/appoint the petitioner to the post of
Head Master as several juniors to the petitioner
have been promoted to the post of Head Master
of different Nationalised High Schools vide memo
No.1397 dated 21.5.08 ignoring the petitioner's
genuine and bonafide claim for
promotion/appointment to the post of Head
Master; And also for any other appropriate
Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable
justice to the petitioner."
2. It is the claim of the petitioners that they should be
promoted to the post of Headmaster. It is their case that since the
vacancy arose prior to 05.11.2004, their cases are to be considered
as per the Rules of 1983 and not as per the Rules of 2004.
3. The issue has been set at rest by the Division Bench of
this Court in L.P.A. No.323 of 2008 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Vs. Yudhisthir Mahto & Ors.), wherein it has been held that so far
as promotion is concerned, the Rules of 2004 will be applicable.
4. It is an admitted case that all the petitioners have
superannuated. They are the Assistant Teachers and were working
as In-Charge Headmaster. They sought to be promoted on regular
basis to the post of Headmaster. The post of Headmaster is a
promotional post from the Assistant Teachers in the ratio of 80:20.
Thus, so far as these petitioners are concerned, they were to be
promoted to the post of Headmaster, which is a substantive post.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Bihar & Ors. Vs. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors. reported in
(1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 334, has held that retrospective seniority
cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even
borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective
effect as that might adversely affect others.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its very recent judgment
in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal
Satpathi & Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3512, has
held that it is a well settled principle that promotion becomes
effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a
vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have
recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a
statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no
fundamental right to the promotion itself.
It has further held at para-21 that promotion only
becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the
promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy
or the date of recommendation.
7. To get the benefit of promotion, a person should assume
the charge of the post. If a person superannuates before assuming
the charge, he is not entitled for the aforesaid benefits nor can be
promoted, which is the case here, as the petitioners have
admittedly superannuated.
8. Considering the aforesaid judgments, I find that no relief
can be granted to the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant.Cp-2
