Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:15865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2328 of 2012
---------
Vijay Kumar Mishra, S/o Sri Haribansh Mishra, Incharge
Headmaster, Nationalized Govind +2 Vidyalaya, Garhwa, resident of
Akalwani, P.O. Lagma, P.S. Meral, Dist. Garhwa (Jharkhand).
......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary (Secondary
Education), Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Bhawan, H.E.C. Area,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources
Development department, Telephone Bhawan, HEC, Ranchi.
3. The regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.
Daltonganj, Dist. Palamu.
4. The District Education Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa,
Dist. - Garhwa. .....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : A.C. to G.P.-VI, Advocate
---------
07/Dated:-17.06.2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying for a direction upon 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.
The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the
order as contained in memo no. 1397 dated 21.05.2008 issued by
the Respondent No.2, by which several junior teachers has been
2025:JHHC:15865
promoted.
The petitioner has further prayed to consider his claim
in the light of the Judgment dated 25.06.2008 passed by this
Court in W.P.(S) No. 7822 of 2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was to be promoted on the basis of 1983 Rules.
However, on 17.07.2006, respondent no. 2 has issued
communication addressed to all the Regional Deputy Director of
Educations/District Education Officers attaching a provisional
gradation list of Assistant teachers holding qualification of Sahitya
Acharya and B.T. training qualification for promotion to the post
of the "Head Master" and objections have been invited which was
prepared on the basis of Jharkhand Nationalised Secondary
School (Service Conditions) Rules, 2004. He further submits that
as per the 2004 Rules, the eligibility for promotion on the post
Headmasters was changed.
He contended that the process for filling up the vacant
posts of Headmaster in Nationalised High School commenced in
early 2000 itself and it was practically completed after issuance of
letter dated 20.07.2005 and only promotion order was to be issued
and the vacancies on which the petitioners and similarly situated
candidates were/are being considered for promotion on the post of
Headmaster had occurred much before 05.11.2004; as such, the
process should have been completed as per the law applicable,
prior to issuance of 2004 Rules. He finally placed reliance upon
W.P.(S) No. 7822 of 2006 passed by this Court.
2025:JHHC:15865
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as
per the 2004 Rules, the minimum qualifications for appointment
and promotion to the post of Headmasters require a post-graduate
degree with 50% marks and a B.Ed. degree and the petitioner does
not hold the requisite qualification; as such, he cannot be
promoted.
He further submits that in catena of judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been made clear that the rules in effect
on the date of appointment will be applied and vacancies which
occurred before the amended rules will be governed by new rules
instead of old rules.
5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after
going through the documents annexed with the respective
affidavits, it appears that the name of petitioner is included in the
seniority list, but educational / training qualifications of the
petitioner are Sahitya Acharya / B.T.
6. According to the provisions in the Jharkhand
Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rules, 2004,
the minimum qualifications for appointment or promotion to the
post of Headmaster requires a post-graduate degree with 50%
marks and a B.Ed. Degree and as per the provisions, the
petitioner does not hold the requisite qualification; therefore, the
petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Headmaster.
7. The stand of petitioner that he was to be promoted on
the basis of 1983 Rules; however, a new Rule i.e. Jharkhand
Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 2004
2025:JHHC:15865
was implemented, but the case of the petitioner should be
governed by the ole Rules; is misconceived in view of the fact that
the Rules in effect on the date of consideration will be applied.
Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.
7822 of 2006, is not applicable in the case at hand as the order
passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7822 of 2006 was based on
the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa
Rao and others1 which has now been overruled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of The State of Himachal Pradesh &
Others v. Raj Kumar & others2.
8. It further appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj
Kumar & Ors. (supra) has observed that the principle laid down
in Y.V. Rangaiah (supra), does not reflect the correct
constitutional position and it stands overruled. For brevity the
relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:
"3. After examining the principle in the context of the constitutional
position of services under the State, and having reviewed the
decisions that have followed or distinguished Rangaiah in that
perspective, we have formulated the legal principles that should
govern services under the State. Applying the said principles, we
have held that the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah does not
reflect the correct constitutional position. We have thus allowed the
appeals following the principles that we have laid down".
9. As aforesaid, the Rules in effect on the date of
appointment will be applied and vacancies which occurred before
the amended rules will be governed by new rules instead of old
rules.
(1983) 3 SCC 284
2022 SCC OnLine SC 680
2025:JHHC:15865
It is also no more res integra that no one can lay a
claim against such vacancy with reference to the old rules.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon L.P.A. No. 323 of 2008 the
relevant portion of which and other analogous appeals are quoted
hereinbelow:
"29. In our opinion, the condition that the Central Government terms
and conditions were to be followed was the reason for framing of new
Rules and this fact would have a bearing even on the decision in "Raj
Kumar" wherein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a
conscious decision is taken by the employer not to fill up any vacancy
no employee can laid a claim against such vacancy with reference to
the old rules. The State of Jharkhand has taken a stand that after
framing of the new Rules of 2004 a provisional gradation list was
prepared following the conditions framed thereunder."
10. Having regard to aforesaid discussion and settled
proposition of law, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
11. With the above observations, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
vikas/-
AFR
