Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17898 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Yogendra Kumar, Assistant Teacher working in Government Middle School, Barra, Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga son of Sri Mishri Lal Mahra, resident of village and Post Kasma Marar Via Khajauli, District Madhubani 2. Ravi Shankar Ram, son of Sri Ram Lal Ram, resident of village & P.O. Gayaspur, P.S. Gangapur, District Siwan at present posted as Govt. Middle School Jhauli, Anchal Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga 3. Basant Kumar Ram, Assistant Teacher, son of late Ram Prasad Ram, resident of village Yogiya, P.S. Rasulpur, District Saran at present posted in Govt. Primary School Chhatauni, Hanuman Nagar, Darbhanga 4. Ranjeet Kumar Paswan, Assistant Teacher son of Sri Agnideo Paswan, resident of village Belmohaur, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani at present posted in Govt. Primary School Khaparpura, P.S. Keoti, District Darbhanga 5. Gyan Chand Ram son of Moti Ram, Assistant Teacher resident of village Loriband, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas at present posted in Govt. Middle School Labani, Benipur, District Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Darbhanga 4. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, AC to GP8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 24-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows: “To implement the appellate order passed by R.D.D.E., Darbhanga vide order dated 13.6.2013 as Annexure 2/1 and promote the petitioners as trained Graduate scale and also direct the respondents to maintain seniority in the list Patna High Court CWJC No.17898 of 2013 (2) dt.24-09-2013 2 because some of the teachers, namely, Kumari Rekha Bharti Sl. No. 517, Ganesh Mahto and Mahesh Das Sl.No. 22 and 23 Sri Dilip Kumar Baitha Sl.No. 28 Sl.No. 64 Sushil Paswan Sl.No. 73 and 79 Pulkit Ram Haril Ram all are junior to these petitioners but they have been wrongly promoted ignoring senior teachers and R.D.D. also passed order for promotion but juniors have been promoted and also seniority given ignoring these petitioners hence respondents may be directed to give promotion to the petitioners.” Mr. Ratan Kumar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in support of the aforementioned prayer has referred to the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga dated 13.6.2013 and has submitted that a clear direction given by the R.D.D.E., Darbhanga in exercise of his appellate power under Promotion Rules, 2011 has not been implemented as yet by the District Education Officer, Darbhanga . Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has produced resolution of the Government dated 13.9.2013 wherein certain directions have been given in the matter relating to grant of Matric trained pay scale. According to him, the petitioners will not be entitled for grant of B.A. trained pay scale in view of the aforementioned Government resolution dated 13.9.2013. Patna High Court CWJC No.17898 of 2013 (2) dt.24-09-2013 3 This Court would find that the order dated 13.6.2013 was passed only in case of one Ranjeet Kumar Paswan, who is petitioner no.4. In this regard it would be relevant to note that there were other appellants for whom a Vakalatnama was filed by one through Sri Satish Ranjan who, however, did not choose to press their appeal on the ground of lack of instruction. Thereafter another lawyer had appeared on 13.6.2013 and had sought time on behalf of appellant nos. 32, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 38. For them the appellate authority had adjourned the case to 29.6.2013. In fact the appellant nos. 31, 33 and 40 had neither appeared themselves nor through their lawyer. For them also hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 29.6.2013. In view of above, the order of the appellate authority has to be kept confined to only petitioner no.4, inasmuch as appellate authority had very fairly dealt only with the case of petitioner no.4 in the following terms: ^^vihykFkhZ la[;k 39 Jh jathr dqekj ikloku Lo;a mifLFkr gSa vkSj mUgksaus ,d ’kiFk i= Hkh fn;k gS ftlesa mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd os viuk i{k Lp;a j[kuk pkgrs gSa blds fy, iwoZ esa muds }kjk vf/kd‘r vf/koDrk dks fn;k x;k vf/kdkj okil fy;k x;k gSA Jh jathr dqekj ikloku dks lquk x;kA muds }kjk crk;k x;k fd izksUufr lwph esa muls duh; f’k{kd@f’kf{kdkvksa dk Hkh uke gSa of.kZr fLFkfr esa muds }kjk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd ojh;rk v{kq.; j[rs gq, izksUufr vkns’k ikfjr djus dk vkns’k fn;k x;kA bl laca/k esa ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh] LFkkiuk] njHkaxk ds }kjk ,d fyf[kr mRrj Hkh lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA mRrj vlarks"ktud gSa A of.kZr fLFkfr esa ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh njHkaxk dks vkns’k Patna High Court CWJC No.17898 of 2013 (2) dt.24-09-2013 4 fn;k tkrk gS fd buds vkosnu ij fopkj djsaxsA ;fn ;s Lukrd …dyk‰ in ds izksUufr dh ;ksX;rk@vgZrk j[krs gSa rks budk uke ojh;rk lwph esa inLFkku ’kkfey fd;k tk; rFkk bugsa 27-12-12 ls izksUufr dh dkjZokbZ dh tk, rFkk d‘r dkjZokbZ ls voxr djk;k tk;A bl vkns’k ds lkFk ;g ckn fu"ikfnr fd;k tkrk gSA** In view of above, this Court would find it difficult to also accept the submission that this was a common order which had governed the cases of all the petitioners. The said order on the face of record has been kept confined to only petitioner no.4. The difficulty, however, is that even in the case of petitioner no.4 there is no clear direction by the appellate authority. The appellate authority had to come his own conclusions and directions but then if he has left the matter to be decided by the District Education Officer that by itself will be abdication of power by such appellate authority. In view of above, the order passed by the appellate authority is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back so far it relates to petitioner no.4 Ranjeet Kumar Paswan. The appellate authority after hearing petitioner no.4 as also considering the materials on record including the latest Government Resolution dated 13.9.2013 will pass an appropriate order as with regard to petitioner no.4. For rest of the petitioners, since their appeal was not
Decision
disposed of and the case was adjourned to 29.6.2013 and no order Patna High Court CWJC No.17898 of 2013 (2) dt.24-09-2013 5 has been broughtforward as to what had happened on 29.6.2013, this Court for the time being would refrain from giving any direction on the said claim of petitioners no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the present. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-