Rakesh Kumar Goswami …. … v. The State of Jharkhand The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Deputy
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5513 of 2014 Rakesh Kumar Goswami …. …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. Versus The State of Jharkhand The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda. …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondent-State
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Md. Jalisur Rahman, Adv. AC to GA : : ----- 15 / 02.02.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for considering his promotion to Grade-IV scale with effect from 31.10.2002 and further to Grade-VII scale from the date when juniors to him have been granted promotion in Grade-IV scale as well as Grade-VII scale, with all consequential benefits. 2. The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed on 30.10.1994 as Matric untrained teacher on the basis of merit list. The petitioner was supposed to be sent for training immediately after his appointment, but after long gap the petitioner was sent for training along with others and he has successfully completed the Teachers Training Examination on 31.10.2002. Thereafter, aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for promotion in view of the Government Circular, the petitioner and others moved before this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 261 of 2009 for promotion from Grade-I to Grade-IV scale
Decision
from the date of his initial joining and the same was disposed of vide order dated 6.8.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in consonance with promotion rules from the date of his initial joining in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balwant Sahay Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P.(S) No. 4235/2004 and also in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench 2 of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court and the said legal position was never disputed by the respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and was given promotion in Grade-I scale with effect from 31.10.1994 and Grade-II scale with effect from 31.10.2006. However, the petitioner was denied promotion to Grade-IV scale, though juniors to him have been granted promotion. Thereafter, again junior to the petitioner was granted promotion to Grade-VII scale. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for grant of promotion to Grade-IV scale as well as Grade-VII scale. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of several orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-IV scale and further to Grade VII scale from the date of his initial appointment and from the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion. Demonstrating the fact, learned counsel submits that one teacher, namely, Kaushal Kishore Gupta, whose position in the seniority list is at serial no. 122, whereas the petitioner’s position is at serial 15, has been granted Grade-IV scale with effect from 11.7.2003. Further one Diwakar Sah and Kaushal Kishore Gupta have been granted promotion in Grade-VII scale vide letter no. 1758 dated 12.12.2018. However, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner to promote him to Grade IV scale while the juniors to the petitioner have already been given the same benefit. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors to the petitioner have been considered for promotion from the date of his initial appointment, but the petitioner has been denied the said benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on a Judgment/order passed by this Hon’ble Court in case of Binay Kumar Tiwary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 388 of 2013 and other analogous cases which was disposed of on 23.03.2017, considering the view reiterated by this Court earlier in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006, which has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in LPA No. 388 of 2013 and other analogous cases, which were disposed of on 23.03.2017. Learned counsel places reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submits that we have considered the case of the petitioner and granted the Grade-I pay scale from the date of his joining and further to Grade-II and Grade IV, but as far as Grade VII is concerned, the same has not been considered till date, it will be decided in near future in accordance with prescribed law and decision of the District Education Establishment Committee. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of records, it transpires that the respondents have considered the case of the other candidates/juniors to the petitioner for granting them promotion from the date of completion of their training though they were appointed much after the petitioner only on the ground that they had undergone training much prior to the petitioner, ignoring settled principle of law that promotion has to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the training, which has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). 6. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate from the supplementary affidavit that juniors to the petitioner namely, Kaushal Kishore Gupta, who was appointed on 7.11.1995 and Diwakar Sah, who was appointed on 30.10.1994 have been considered and granted promotion to Grade IV scale from 7.7.2003 and 11.7.2003 respectively and further to Grade-VII scale from 1.4.2013 and 21.1.2017 respectively, whereas the case of the petitioner has been denied. 7. The issue regarding consideration of promotion from the initial date of appointment and not from the date of completion of training has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLA (Civil) Nos. 6777-6779 of 2013. 8. Juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion to Grade IV and further to Grade VII scale, whereas the case 4 of the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied. The issue regarding promotion to teachers is now no more res integra, law of the land has to be taken into consideration while granting promotion. In the instant case, pick and choose method has been adopted and as such, the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date on which the juniors to him have been considered taking into account the date of initial appointment and not date of completion of the training. The petitioner is much senior to the candidates, who have been granted promotion and is placed higher in the seniority list i.e. at Sl. No. 15, which is never been disputed by the respondents. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in Grade IV scale Grade VII scale with effect from the date when the juniors to him have been considered and granted promotion with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)