IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S). No. 670 of 2004
...
Marianus Thomas Lakra ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga
4. The Area Education Officer, Lohardaga
5. The Headmaster, Government Middle School,
Jingi, Lohardaga
6. Regional Deputy Director of Education,
South Chhotanagpur Division, Jharkhand, Ranchi ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to A.G.
...
4/ 04.01.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon
the respondents to pay the B.A. Trained scale to the petitioner in the scale of
Rs. 5500 – 9000/- which has already been allowed to the petitioner vide
office order dated 12.12.2001 and also to pay him difference of salary on the
graduate trained scale with effect from 01.04.1999.
3. As it appears from the pleadings of the petitioner in this writ
application, the petitioner was appointed in service as a Matric Trained
Assistant Teacher in the year 1987 and was posted in the Government Middle
School, Masmano in the district of Lohardaga.
Subsequently by office Memo dated 12.12.2001 he was granted
Graduate trained scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000/- with effect from 01.04.1999 and
was posted in the Government Middle School, Jingi in the district of
Lohardaga, where he joined on 07.01.2002 and his pay was also fixed in the
scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000/-
4. The grievance of the petitioner however is that despite such sanction,
he has not been allowed to draw the scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000/- and thereby,
he has been deprived of the benefits of difference of salary on the above scale
ever since 01.04.1999.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated
that the order of promotion granted to the petitioner earlier and upon which
the petitioner has based his claim, was illegally passed by the then In-charge
District Superintendent of Education without following the legal procedure
and without obtaining the approval of the District Education Establishment
Committee.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents would explain that under Rule 3
and Rule 9 (1 and 2) of the Promotion Rules, 1993, promotion to the
Graduate Trained Scale could be given to a teacher only if he completes a
minimum period of 18 years in Grade-I and only upon recommendation made
by the District Education Establishment Committee. In the petitioner’s case,
on 01.04.1999 that is the date on which the petitioner had obtained his
graduation certificate, he had not completed the required period of teaching
experience for enabling his promotion and neither was any recommendation
obtained from the District Education Establishment Committee and as such,
the promotion granted to the petitioner being illegal, the petitioner is not
entitled to the scale which he has demanded.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue on the other hand that
the Rules referred to by the respondents under which they claim that the
petitioner ought to have completed 18 years of continuous service in Grade-I,
is not applicable to the petitioner. Learned counsel however does not dispute
that for grant of promotion, recommendation of the District Education
Establishment Committee was required to be taken as per the Rules and in the
petitioner’s case, this has admittedly not been done.
8. From the rival submissions and even as admitted by the Learned
counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the promotion which was granted to
the petitioner was not in consonance with the Rules. The concerned
authorities of the respondents have rightly assessed the petitioner’s claim
and taken a decision as recorded in the impugned order (Annexure-6) to
reject his claim.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any
merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/