Ganesh Ravidas v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Appellant HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. S. Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Sunil Singh, Adv. : Mr. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG-I ------ For the Respondent-State For the Resp. No.8 Order No.07/ Dated: 3rd November, 2023 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed to question the writ Court’s order dated 9th March, 2021.

2. Before the writ Court, the appellant challenged the order contained in Memo No.1822 dated 19th August 2011 by which promotion granted to him on the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 01st April 1991 was withdrawn and an order of recovery has been passed against him.

3. At this stage, this is pertinent to record here that the appellant had preferred W.P.(S) No.3994 of 2011 raising a similar issue which was withdrawn by the learned counsel representing him (paragraph no.6). -2-

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, this much is sufficient to indicate that the competent authority to pass an order granting promotion to the post of Headmaster is not the District Superintendent of Education. As per Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rule, 1993, a consideration of the eligible candidates for the promotion to the post of Headmaster is made by the District Education Establishment Committee. This is also necessary to indicate that the order dated 22nd September, 1998 granting promotion to the appellant to the post of Headmaster was passed by the District Superintendent Education at Godda after having formed an opinion that some order has been passed in W.P.(S) No.6415 of

5. The records of W.P.(S) No.6415 of 2002 have been attached with the present Letters Patent Appeal and we have perused the same. We find that the said writ petition was filed on 28th November, 2002 and no order was passed by the Court till the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 26th June, 2008. Furthermore, the pleadings of the W.P.(S) No.6415 of 2002 are not on record but it is not disputed by Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 22nd September, 1998 has been passed with reference to W.P.(S) No.6415 of 2002. The writ Court having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter, approved the decision as contained in Memo No.1822 dated 19th August 2011 to withdraw the promotion granted to the appellant w.e.f 1st April, 1991.

6. The writ Court has considered the rival stands in the following manner:-

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that when the service book and pension paper of the petitioner was forwarded by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide his letter No.1930 dated 10.02.2005; the same was returned by the office of Accountant General for clarification. The said letter was responded by the then District Superintendent of Education vide letter No.22 dated

04.01.2011. However, the case was again returned by the office of -3- Accountant General with calculation sheet of excess paid amount due to wrong promotion given to the petitioner as Headmaster w.e.f.

1.04.1991.

12. From record it also appears that the petitioner had earlier filed an application being W.P. (S) No.6415 of 2002 which was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the same has become infructuous. The record further reveals that the District Education Establishment Committee passed a resolution in its meeting dated 7 04.05.1998 and 13.09.1998 to grant promotion to the Teachers in the post of Headmaster from 01.03.1995 to SC and ST candidates as per provision made in the Promotion Rule, 1993. On the basis of said resolution passed by the Committee, a letter dated 22.09.1998 was issued by the then District Superintendent of Education, Godda and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 01.03.1995. However, vide order dated

10.02.2005; the then District Superintendent of Education without approval of the District Education Committee, Godda extended the benefit of promotion as Headmaster from 01.04.1991 instead of

01.03.1995.

13. The order dated 10.02.2005 (Annexure-7) clearly transpires that same has been passed in view of the fact that one writ application being W.P.(S) No.6415 of 2002 was filed by this petitioner. At the cost of repetition; during course of hearing the record of aforesaid writ application was called for, however, after going through the entire order sheet it transpires that no order, whatsoever, was passed in the said writ application, save and except, the final order of withdrawal. As such, there was no occasion for the then District Superintendent of Education to pass the fresh order (Annexure-7). Further, the said order was passed without approval of the District Education Establishment Committee, Godda. From Promotion Rule, 1993 it clearly transpires that the power of 8 promotion is vested in the District Education Establishment Committee, as such, the order passed by the then District Superintendent of Education vide Annexure-7 was beyond the -4- Promotion Rule and against the resolution of the District Education Establishment Committee, Godda. It is only after clarification by the office of Accountant General, the matter was placed before the District Education Establishment Committee and the Committee after verifying the entire service record of the petitioner cancelled the order dated

10.02.2005 granting him promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1991 and modified/extended the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster w.e.f. 01.03.1995. Thus, it appears that after clarification the error which was committed by the then District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide Annexure-7 has been rectified and a decision was taken to cancel the promotional letter which was otherwise also beyond jurisdiction and a fresh order was passed, whereby the petitioner was given benefit of promotion w.e.f. 01.03.1995.

7. The writ Court referred to “Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another versus T.K. Suryanarayn and others” (1997) 6 SCC 766 and “Union of India & Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh” (2008) 2 SCC 750 to approve the decision of the respondents to shift the date of promotion of the appellant to 1st March 1995 holding that an administrative decision can be corrected and no vested right can be claimed on the basis of a mistake crept in the service record or the order granting promotion.

8. Having thus examined the matter, we find no merit in L.P.A. No. 292 of 2021 and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Sunil-Pappu/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)