IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1548 of 2003
...
1. Manju Suri;
2. Krishna Sinha ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand;
2. Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Regional Deputy Director (Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau,
5. District Superintendent of Education, Palamau, Daltonganj.
6. District Education Officer, Palamau, Daltonganj. ... Respondents .
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rabindra Prasad, J.C. to G.P. - IV.
.........
C.A.V. On 13/10/2009 PRONOUNCED ON 28/10/2009
Amareshwar Sahay, J Heard the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are
fulfilling all the eligibility criteria to have the Graduate Trained Pay
Scale but the same is not being given to them and they are
compelled to work in the Matric Trained Pay Scale, whereas the
teachers junior to them have been granted the benefits of Graduate
Trained Pay Scale and in this way, they are being discriminated by
the respondents.
3. The case, as set out by the petitioners, is that the
petitioner no. 1 who has been appointed in the Matric Trained Scale
in the year 1987, is having educational qualification of M.A., B.Ed.
whereas, the petitioner no. 2 was appointed in the Matric Trained
Scale as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1987 and is also M.A., B.Ed..
According to the petitioners, they fulfill all the eligibility criteria for
promoting them to the Graduate Trained Scale but still they are not
being promoted to the said Graduate Trained Scale. The petitioners
allege that several persons junior to them were given Graduate
Trained Scale from the date of passing of their training and those
persons subsequently have been promoted to the post of Head
Master and are presently functioning as a Head Master. For
example, the names of two persons namely Haridwar Mahto and
Geeta Kumari, have been given and has been stated that they
were appointed in Matric Trained Pay Scale but subsequently, they
have been granted Graduate Trained Scale in the year 2002 w.e.f.
2 W.P.(S) No. 1548 of 2003
01.04.1997
. It is further alleged that though the petitioners
represented to all the authorities concerned including the Director,
Primary Education, but no action has been taken by any authority till
date for redressing the grievance of the petitioners.
4. The claim and allegations of the petitioners have been
controverted by the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa
(Respondent No. 5) by filing a counter affidavit stating interalia that
for the purpose of upgrading for promotion, the gradation list for
Science and Arts Graduate Trained Teachers has been prepared
separately as per Bihar/ Jharkhand Taken Over Elementary Schools’
Teachers’ Promotion Rule, 1993 and consequent to the Rules,
separate seniority list of Science Graduate and Arts Graduate
Trained Teachers have been prepared. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that those two teachers i.e. Haridwar Mahto and Geeta
Kumari who have been named by the petitioners in the writ petition,
are no doubt junior to the petitioners but actually they are in the list
of Science Graduates in the Gradation List and they have been
promoted to Graduate Trained Scale on availability of Science
Category Teachers whereas, the writ petitioners are in the Gradation
list of Arts Category Teachers and, therefore, they could not be
sanctioned Graduate Trained Scale.
5. The stand of the respondents in not providing Graduate
Trained Scale to the petitioners falls directly under the teeth of the
Judgment of Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of
Naresh Jha and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in
1994(2) PLJR 348 wherein, the same Bihar/ Jharkhand Taken Over
Elementary Schools’ Teachers’ Promotion Rule, 1993 was under
consideration and it was held ultimately in paragraph-11 of the said
Judgment that the classification between Arts and Science teachers
in the absence of duly constituted separate cadres for them is
arbitrary and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied their right
of promotion to the Graduate Trained Scale i.e. Grade-4 merely on
the basis of their not possessing the qualification of Graduation in
Science (emphasis is mine).
6. Following the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench
of the Patna High Court in the case of Naresh Jha and others
(Supra), a learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 494 of
2003 [Sheo Nandan Ram and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and
3 W.P.(S) No. 1548 of 2003
others] , while dealing with a similar question, as in the present writ
petition, also held that since the Order of the Division Bench of the
Patna High Court in the case of Naresh Jha and others (Supra) has
attained finality. It is also held that it is difficult to visualize that two
sets of persons belonging to the same cadre at the stage of
promotion to Grades 2 & 3 (senior scale and selection scale of
Matric Trained Teachers) will form different cadres at Intermediate
stage and then again get amalgamated into one cadre at the later
stages of promotion to Grade 6, 7 and 8. The promotion Rules can’t
be said to have created a separate cadre for the Arts and Science
teachers and thus, the classification for the purposes of promotion
on the assumption that separate cadres have been created, is
erroneous and unsustainable and, accordingly, as per the decision
of the Division Bench, learned Single Judge also directed to prepare
a joint gradation list and promote senior teachers in accordance
with law.
7. In the present case also, as it appears that the
respondents are denying the right of promotion to the petitioners
only on the ground that they are Arts Trained Graduate whereas, the
persons though Junior to the petitioners, have been given the
Graduate Trained Scale since they are the Science Trained
Graduate and their Gradation List are separate. This action of the
respondents are wholly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be
sustained.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are hereby directed to treat the Science Trained Graduate and Arts
Trained Graduate at par for giving promotion to Graduate Trained
Scale and they are further directed to give the same and similar
benefits of promotion to the petitioners as has been given to the
Science Graduates, in accordance with law. Consequential orders
must be passed by the concerned respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is allowed. No costs.
RC/ (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)