The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7282 of 2023 -- 1.Rakesh Kumar Singh, aged about 42 Years, S/o- Chandramauleshwar Prasad Singh, R/o- Village-Nagriya, P.O and P.S. Basbutiya, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand 2. Sanket Gautam, aged about 36 Years, S/o- Sushil Kumar Ray, R/o Gokuldham Apartment D-404, Tagore Hill Road, Morabadi Maidan, P.O.and, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Mahendra Mandal,aged about 39 Years, S/o- Kaila Mahto, R/o- Village- Chandramarni, P.O and P.S. Sariya, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. 4. Chanda Kumari, aged about 47 Years, D/o- Kamlakant Shah, R/o- Shivpahar, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Gaytri Roy, aged about 35 Years, D/o- Late Kalipad Ray, R/o- Dangalpara Argada Road, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand. 6. Mathura Prasad, aged about 46 years, S/o-Muni Lat Mahto, R/o- Village- Padariya, P.O.-Padariya, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 7. Pitamber Prasad, aged about 41 years, S/o-Jiblal Mahto, R/o- Village-Padariya, PO.-Padariya, P.S. Barhi, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 8. Pushpa Kumari, aged about 41 years, D/o- Durgesh Prajapati, R/o- Matwari Kumhar Toli, P.0 and P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 9. Ravi Shankar Shukla, aged about 41 years, S/o- Ramdas Shukla, R/o-177, Dongakata, Vill-Nandpur, P.O. and P.S.- Manhoharpur, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 10. Shiv Shankar Mandal, aged about 38 years, S/o- Santosh Kumar Mandal, R/o-Haribhanja, P.O. and P.S.-Kharsawan, District Seraikella-Kharsawan,Jharkhand. 11. Binod Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o- Late Rameshwar Singh, R/o-34, Jhumka Mohalla, Ward No.-9, Gali No-01, P.O. and P.S.- Chakradharpur, District - West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 12. Sujit Kumar Satua, aged about 49 years, S/o- Gouranga Chand Satua, R/o-Vill-Sandra (Barasati), P.O. and P.S.-Arang, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .........Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary/Secretary, School, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 1 4. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5.Deputy Commissioner- cum- Chairman District Establishment Committee, Dumka P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District Dumka 6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District- Dumka. 7. District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar District Dumka. 8.Deputy Commissioner -cum- Chairman District Establishment Committee, Hazaribag. P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag 9. Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag. . 10. District Superintendent of Education, Education, Hazaribag. P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar District Hazaribag. 11.Deputy Commissioner-cum Chairman District Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum.P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 12. Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum, P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 13. District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum. P.O. G.P.O P.S. Sadar District West Singhbhum. 14. National Council for Teachers Education, through its Chairman, Hans Bhawan, Wing-ii, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, P.O.and P.S. Indraprastha, New Delhi. ..........Respondents. with W.P(S) No. 7284 of 2023 1. Vinay Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o-Nanhak Ram, R/o- village- Sorath P.O- Tall, P.S- Panki, District- Palamu, 822122, Jharkhand. 2. Abhishek Raj, aged about 38 years, S/o- shiyasharan Prasad, R/o- Janakpuri, Panki Road, Redma P.O & P.S- Medininagar,District- Palamu, 822101, Jharkhand. 3. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, aged about 36 years, S/o- Krishna Chaudhary, R/o- Village- Dangwar, P.O- Dangwar, P.S. Husainabad, District- Palamu, 822116, Jharkhand 4. Praveen Kumar Ravi, aged about 37 years, S/o- Balkeshwar Ram, R/o- Temki, P.O- Temki, P.S- Latehar, District- Latehar, 829206, Jharkhand. 5. Pradip Kumar Bharti, aged about 38 years, S/o- Ramdhar Ram, R/o- Village- Mahudand, P.O- Ratanag, P.S- Husainabad, District-Palamu, 822132, Jharkhand. 6. Suresh Prasad, aged about 49 years, S/o- Kedar Saw, R/o- Village- Chak, P.O.- Dhanngaon, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamu, 822118. Jharkhand. 7. Arbind Kumar Ram, aged about 39 years, S/o- Chandrika Ram, R/o- Village- Darudih, P.O- Sangbar, P.S. Lesliganj. District- Palamu, 822118, Jharkhand. 2 8. Hemendra Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o- Ram Bilas Ram, R/o- Village Reganiya, P.O- Chaparwar, P.S- Chhatarpur. District- Palamu, 822113, Jharkhand. 9. Satish kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o- Mahesh Kumar, R/o- Village Sarjamatu, P.O- Loharsi, P.S- Pipratand panki, District- Palamu, 822122, Jharkhand. 10. Pramod Kumar Ravi, aged about 47 years, S/o- Mushan Ram, R/o- Village- Kukhi, P.O- Kukhi, P.S- Haidarnagar, District- Palamu, 822115, Jharkhand. 11. Pramod Prajapati, aged about 43 years, S/o- Shobhan Prajapati, R/o-Ashehar, P.O.-Ashehar, P.S.-Panki, District- Palamau, 822118, Jhakhand. 12. Bipin Kumar Ravi, aged about 45 years, S/o-Late Kumar Ravi, R/o- Oria Kalan, P.O.-Gurua, P.S.-Leslieganj, District-Palamau, 822118, Jharkhand. 13. Sanjay Kumar Saw, aged about 42 years, S/o- Gopal Saw, R/o- Village Basariya Khurd, P.O- Chando, P.S- Chainpur. District- Palamu, 822110, Jharkhand. 14. Rishikesh Kumar Mehra, aged about 37 years, S/o- Ganesh Ram, R/o- village- Phulsu, P.O- Phulsu, P.S- Bariyatu, District Latehar, 829202, Jharkhand. 15. Jawahar Kumar, aged about 49 years, S/o- Shiv Ram, R/o- Village- Rajaghatahua, P.O. Lamari Kalan, P.S- Kandi, District Garhwa. 822120, Jharkhand. 16. Ayush Kumar Ram, aged about 38 years, S/o- Raja Dasharath, R/o- Village- Ambedkar Nagar, P.O- Redma, P.S- Medininagar, District- Palamu, 822101, Jharkhand. 17. Niranjan Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o- Jatan Ram. R/o- village- Oriya, P.O- Gurua. P.S. Leslieganj, District- Palamu, 822118, Jharkhand. 18. Akbar Hussain, aged about 42 years, S/o- Subhan Ansari, R/o- Basiriya, P.O- Konwai, P.S- Panki, district- Palamu, 822122, Jharkhand. 19. Idrees, aged about 38 years, S/o- Quamruddin, R/o- Village- Kajru Kalan, P.O- Kajru, P.S- Pandu. District- Palamu, 822124, Jharkhand. 20. Bijay Kumar Pal, aged about 43 years, S/o- Suneshwar Pal, R/o- Village- Loharsi, P.O. Lobarsi, P.S. Panki, District- Palamu, 822122, Jharkhand. 21. Rahul Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o- Dhananjay Singh, R/o- Village- Bhabhandi, P.O- Bhabhandi, P.S. -Peepra, District-Palamu, Jharkhand. Versus ...Petitioners. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary/Secretary, School, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of 3 Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand having its Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.. 5. Deputy Commissioner -cum- Chairman District Establishment Committee, Palamu, P.O & P.S- Medininagar, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. 6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamu. P.O & P.S- Medininagar, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. 7. District Superintendent of Education, Palamu, P.O & P.S- Medininagar, District-Palamu, Jharkhand. 8. National Council for Teacher Education through its Chairman, Hans Bhawan Wing- II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, P.O & P.S. Indraprastha, New Delhi, ...Respondents. -- CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate -- M/s. Shail Lakra, Sonam Ranjan, Advs. [in both cases] For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI Mr. Deepika Jojowar, A.C to S.C.-VI [W.P.(S) No. 7282/23] Mr. Soumya S. Pandey, A.C to AAG-I [W.P.(S) No. 7284/23] For the Resp.-NCTE : M/s. Ravi Kumar, Shubham Kataruka, Ushma Pandey, Advs. -- 08/23.09.2024 Since both these writ applications arise out of same impugned order; as such, they are heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. W.P.(S) No. 7282 of 2023 have been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing of the part of recommendation of through the committee, as communicated Government Letter, contained in Memo No. 866, dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure-8), to the extent and limit, whereby the following has been recommended: - 1. At column 2, it has been said that the qualification of TET pass will be necessary for the Intermediate Trained Teachers (Class I to V), for the purpose of promotion to Grade- IV this, however, has been made applicable only to the teachers appointed in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules of 2012 and after promulgation of the Rules; 4 this has left appointees of the year prior to 2012, at liberty not to undergo the qualification, virtually relaxing the TET pass qualification for respect, consideration of promotion to Grade IV. their in 2. At column 7, the requisite tenure of the ’graduate trained teachers’, Grade-IV (Direct Appointees in pursuance to the requirement Rules, 2012, on grade-IV post) to qualify to be considered for promotion to Grade-VII, has been recommended to be enhanced from 5 years the provisions of 1993 Promotion Rules. to 10 years, as against trained teacher’(promotees 3. Also, at Column 7, the requisite tenure of the ’graduate to Grade-IV), who have been appointed and have rendered their services since prior to 2012, the requisite tenure of 5 years as Grade-IV for consideration of promotion to Grade-VII, has been singularly relaxed and reduced to Zero form 5 years, as one time measure, against the provisions of the Promotion Rules, 1993. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to maintain uniform educational qualification of TET Pass for all teachers, irrespective of their dates of appointment, in the matter of promotion to grade higher/ post, and also to uniformly abide by the requisite eligibility tenure, required for promotion of teachers from Grade-IV to VII, as per the Promotion Rule, 1993, to 5 years. the basis of (ⅲ) For issuance of appropriate order (s) and direction (s), restraining the Respondents from proceeding further on recommendation, letter dated 14.11.2023 communicated by (Annexure-8), and further to stay the operation, implementation and execution of (Annexure-8), since the Respondents are proceeding in the matter of fixation of seniority and promotion, without passing any final orders and only on the basis of the said Recommendation. (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), restraining the Respondent from undertaking any promotional process, in pursuance to letter dated 14.11.2023. 3. W.P.(S) No. 7284 of 2023 have been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs (i) For quashing of the part of recommendation of the committee, as communicated through Government Letter, contained in Memo No. 866, dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure-8), to the extent 5 and limit, whereby the following has been recommended: - 1. At column 2, it has been said that the qualification of TET pass will be necessary for the Intermediate Trained Teachers (Class I to V), for the purpose of promotion to Grade- IV this, however, has been made applicable only to the teachers appointed in pursuance to the Recruitment Rules of 2012 and after promulgation of the Rules; this has left appointees of the year prior to 2012, at liberty not to undergo the qualification, virtually relaxing the TET pass qualification for respect, consideration of promotion to Grade IV. their in (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to maintain uniform educational qualification of TET Pass for all teachers, irrespective of their dates of appointment, in the matter of promotion to higher grade/ post. the basis of (ⅲ) For issuance of appropriate order (s) and direction (s), restraining the Respondents from proceeding further on recommendation, letter dated 14.11.2023 communicated by (Annexure-8), and further to stay the operation, implementation and execution of (Annexure-8), since the Respondents are proceeding in the matter of fixation of seniority and promotion, without passing any final orders and only on the basis of the said Recommendation. (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), restraining the Respondent from undertaking any promotional process, in pursuance to letter dated 14.11.2023. 4. To decide the issue involved in these cases, the order dated 20.08.2024 is extracted hereinbelow: “Order dated 24.07.2024 reads as follows: It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the department is proceeding only on the basis of proposed amendment in the Promotion Rules, 1993 without amending the Rules itself. Learned counsel further draws attention to paragraph no. 19, wherein it has been stated that the seniority list of teachers for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-VII has been issued, which is directly affecting the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents prays and is allowed a short indulgence in order to seek instruction as to whether the said seniority list will be effective in absence of any amendment in Promotion Rules, 1993. In view of the aforesaid situation, till the next date of hearing, Memo No. 2472 dated 13.12.2023 and also letter no. 6 866 dated 14.11.2023 shall not take effect. List these cases on 30.07.2024.” In spite of the aforesaid order no specific affidavit has been filed till date. List this case on 29.08.2024. In the meantime, operation of order dated 13.12.2023 and 14.11.2023 shall continue till further order.” 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4, wherein at paragraph 12, it has been stated that the letter no. 866 dated 14.11.2023 which is impugned in the these applications was issued from the office of Secretary of Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, after consideration, resolution of the objections received from various teacher organizations/representatives regarding the guidance issued vide Directorate letter no. 770 (Law) dated 05.10.2023 for promotion of teachers of Government Primary Schools in various grade. Further, letter no. 866 dated 14.11.2023 is just guidance to the districts regarding promotion of teachers of Government Primary School in various grades. 6. During course of argument, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent-State that the proposed amendment in the existing Promotion Rules will take another four months’ time to be placed before the Cabinet and therefore, he cannot assure when the amendment will be made in the original Rule of 1993 Promotion Rules. 7. This Court fails to understand that when it is not sure when the amendment will be made in the Promotion Rules, 1993; why the State is not proceeding with the existing Promotion Rules which governs promotion of the petitioners amongst others i.e., Promotion Rules, 1993. Admittedly, nobody can predict the particular date with regard to amendment. It may be possible that the 7 proposed recommendation may not be accepted by the Government. 8. Be that as it may. In the interest of justice for all the candidates, who are aspiring and eligible for promotion, it is necessary to direct the Respondent-State to proceed in the matter of promotion, in accordance with the present existing Rule i.e., Promotion Rules, 1993. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to proceed with the process of promotion forthwith and complete the same as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from today. It goes without saying that the respondents will not be prejudiced by either of the letters mentioned in paragraph no. 12 i.e., 770(Law) dated 05.10.2023 and 866 dated 14.11.2023 and shall proceed in the process of promotion strictly, in accordance with the existing Rule i.e. Promotion Rules, 1993. It goes without saying that if at all any seniority list has been prepared without following the existing Rule i.e. Promotion Rules, 1993; the same shall not take effect and a fresh list shall be made strictly, in accordance with existing rule. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ
Decision
application stands disposed of. jk (Deepak Roshan, J.) 8