Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11361 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Mahmood Alam Ansari S/O Late Abdul Aziz Ansari R/O Village - Kaashmirganj, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna 2. Braj Kishore Prasad S/O Late Rajendra Ram R/O Wishwanath Mandir Road, Lakhibagh, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna 3. Mohd. Mustaq Ahmed S/O Mohd. Ayub R/O Mohalla - Maalkana, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna 4. Shailendra Kumar Sinha S/O Late Ramanand Sinha R/O Mohalla - Srinagar, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna 5. Mohd. Fazal Imam S/O Late Mohd. Ayub R/O Mohalla - Maalkana, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna 6. Suresh Kumar Prasad S/O Late Bechan Prasad R/O Village - Jiyauddinchak, P.S. Dhanarua, District - Patna 7. Ravi Shanker Prasad Singh S/O Late Angika Singh R/O Mohalla - East Indira Nagar, Gate No. 5, P.S. Kankerbagh, District - Patna 8. Rajesh Kumar S/O Sri Nandkeshwar Prasad R/O Village - Fatehpur, P.S. Belchi, Barh, District - Patna 9. Abdul Rahim S/O Mohd. Yusuf R/O Village - Muslim Raghopur, P.S. Bihta, District - Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Patna 5. The District Programme Officer ( Establishment ) Education, Patna
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, AC to GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 24-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. ------ for quashing a part of the notification inserted as “KHA” communicated under memo Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 2 no. 697 dated 15/10/2012 issued under the authority of Respondent No.2, the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder it was communicated that in absence of the ability to the post of graduate scale for 4 years may be kept in the seniority list for the promotion against the post of the Head master in the Middle School and consequent on an after the consideration of the candidature, the necessary promotion may be accorded by ignoring the relevant provisions under Rule 10 of the Bihar Taken Over Primary Teacher Promotion Rule, 2011 under which on the basis of one time relaxation, no time limits, as the barrier for the consideration and promotion in absence of the post graduate teacher” Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that once the rule of promotion, namely, izkjafHkd fon~;ky; f”k{kd izksUufr fu;ekoyh] 2011 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the 2011 Rules’) did not envisage laying down of any particular period for relaxation in the Graduate Trained Teachers for the purpose of promotion on the post of Headmaster, the impugned order passed by the State Government on 15.10.2012, an executive order, would be deemed to be in teeth of the statutory provisions. Attractive though the aforesaid submissions in the first glance may be, when this Court pierce the same in the background of the Rules, it would become clear that the said Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 3 impugned notification dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure-2) is well within the parameter of the Rules itself. The 2011 Rules lays down three categories of teachers i.e. the Matric/Intermediate Trained (ii) Graduate Trained and the (iii) Headmaster of the Middle School. The promotion has to be given from the post of Matric/Intermediate Trained Teacher, Graduate Trained Teacher and the Graduate Trained Teacher are eligible for the promotion to the post of Headmaster in the middle school. Rule 5 lays down that the promotion shall be effected only on completion of the requirement of the conditions. Rule 7 lays down that promotion will be given to the Matric/Intermediate Trained Teacher/Graduate Trained Teacher/Headmaster from Grade-3 to Grade-2 and Grade- 1. Rule 8, thereafter, lays down that only the Teachers of Grade-1 & 2 in the Matric/Intermediate Trained Teacher shall be eligible for promotion on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher and in absence of sufficient number of Grade-1 & Grade-2 Teachers, the Matric/Intermediate Trained of Grade-3 having completed eight years of Kalawadhi (minimum period of service) shall be eligible for promotion on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. Its Rule-9 clarifies the whole object of the impugned order, inasmuch as, from Rule-9, it becomes clear that the post of Graduate Trained Teacher of Grade-1 and Grade-2 has to be filled Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 4 up from the post of Graduate Qualification holder Teachers and if there are no sufficient number of Grade-1 and Grade-2 Teachers, the Grade-3 Teacher, having minimum four years of service and having qualification of Post Graduate, would be entitled for promotion on the post of Headmaster on the basis of seniority. Rule-10 only thereafter lays down the manner of promotion on the post of Headmaster by giving one time relaxation and, therefore, Rule 9 & 10 have to be read together and the same for the sake of clarity is also quoted hereinbelow:- ^^9- e/; fon~;ky; ds iz/kuk/;kid ds inksa ij izksUufr%& Lukrd f”k{kdkas ds xzsM I ,oa II esa Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdksa rFkk xzsM I ,oa xsazM II esa visf{kr Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd miyC/k ugha gksus dh n”kk esa] xzsM III esa U;wure 4 o’kksZa dh lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdksa dks] ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij e/; fon~;ky;ksa ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds miyC/k fjDr inksa ij izksUufr nsus ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA fu;e 8 ,oa fu;e 9 ds v/khu nh x;h izksUufr] vf/klwpuk dh frfFk ls rFkk forh; ykHk ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls fn;k tk;sxkA 10- e/; fon~;ky;ksa ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds inksa ij izksUufr gsrq lsok%& dkyko/kh ,o Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk esa ^^,d ckj** (One time) f”kfFkyhdj.k%& ;fn Lukrd f”k{kd ds xzsM III esa U;wure 4 o’kksZa dh lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd miyC/k ugha gks rks xzsM III esa U;wure ,d o’kZ dh lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdkss dks iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr gsrq dkykof/k esa ,d ckj (One time) f”kfFkyhdj.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA blh izdkj Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd ugha miyC/k ugha gksus ij Lukrd ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdksa dks iz/kkuk/;kid in ij izksUufr gsrq ;ksX;rk esa ,d ckj (One time) f”kfFkyhdj.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA** It is in this backdrop that the State Government, in keeping with the provision under Rule 10, had to issue a Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 5 notification giving one time relaxation and that is how the relaxation was given by issuing the impugned notification, which reads as follows:- ^^la[;k& 7@o3&659@92 va”k I & -----------@fcgkj jktdh;d‘r izkjafHkd f”k{kd izksUufr fu;ekoyh 2011 dh dafMdk 10 esa ek/; fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds inksa ij izksUufr gsrq lsok&dkykof/k ,oa Lukrdksrj ;ksX;r keas ,d ckj (One time) f”kfFkyhdj.k dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gS] ftlds vUrxZr ;fn Lukrd f”k{kd ds xzsM III esa U;wure pkj c’kksZa dh lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd miyC/k ugha gks rks xzsM III es U;wure ,d o’kZ dh lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdksa dks iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr gsrw dkykof/k esa ,d ckj (One time)f”kfFkyhdkj.k f”k{kk foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA blh izdkj Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd ugha miyC/k gksus ij Lukrd ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kdksa dks iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr gsrq ;ksX;rk esa f”kfFkyhdkj.k ,d ckj (One time)fd;k tk ldsxkA fu;ekoyh ds mDr izko/kku ds vkyksd es jkT; ds ek/; fo|ky;ksa esa iz/kkuk/;kid ds in dh fjfDr dks izksUufr ls Hkjus gsrq fuEu vkns”k fn;s tkrs gS%& …d‰ Lukrdksrj ;ksX;rk/kkjh oSls f”k{kd tks 31-12-2013 rd Lukrd osrueku esa U;wure ,d o’kZ dh lsok iwjh dj ysaxs mUgas e/; fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij ^^izksUufr gsrq izksUufr fu;ekoyh 2011** ds vkyksd esa fopkj fd;k tk,xkA …[k‰ mi;qZDr ^d* ds vuqlkj ;ksX;rk/kkjh f”k{kd miyC/k ugha gksus ij Lukrd osrueku esa U;wure pkj o’kksZa rd dk;Zjr ¼Lukrd ;ksX;rk/kkjh½ f”k{kd dks 31-12-2013 dh ojh;rk lwph ds vk/kkj ij e/; fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr gsrq fopkj fd;k tk,xkA Lsok&dkykof/k ,oa ;ksX;rk esa mi;qZDr ,d ckj (One time)ds fy, gksxhA izksUufr fu;ekoyh ds “ks’k izko/kku ;Fkkor jgsaxsA** The conjoint reading of Rule 9 & 10 of the 2011 Rules, therefore, would leave nothing for speculation that it is only the Graduate Trained Teacher who has completed four years of service will be entitled for promotion on the post of Headmaster in Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 6 the event of non-availability of Grade-1 and Grade-2 Teachers and having Post Graduate qualification. Once this aspect becomes clear, the hollowness in the objection of Mr. Shivendra Kishore learned counsel for the petitioner to Clause ‘Kha’ of the impugned notification gets automatically explained and infact also exposed. The period of four years in fact is a requirement of Rule-9 for all the Graduate Trained Teachers in the category-3 and the petitioners, all of whom were promoted on 16.7.2010 and have joined their post of Graduate Trained Teacher in the month of August, 2010, would thereby complete four years only in the month of August 2014 so as to become eligible for promotion on the post of Headmaster. There being no other provision for relaxation of that period of four years prescribed under Rule-9, this Court cannot now also allow the petitioners to steal march without completing the requirement of a period of four years. Before parting with, this Court must also take note of the ancillary submission of Mr. Shivendra Kishore, inasmuch as, he is of the view that since the impugned notification does not mention Rule-9 and only talks of Rule-10, this Court cannot read the same into such notification. As a matter of fact, this submission of Mr. Shivendra Kishore overlooks such settled position in law that if the source of power is in the Rule and Patna High Court CWJC No.11361 of 2013 (2) dt.24-06-2013 7 purpose of that notification is only to effectuate one time relaxation to be given under Rule-10, the State Government definitely had the power to also lay down the period of four years as provided under Rule-9. At least, on that score, the notification cannot be said to be bad or in violation of the statutory provision. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-