MDTARIQUEALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These applications raise a question as to whether the orders passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Purnes, whereby and whereunder the promotions givec to the Assistant teachers working in different Schools in the district of Purnea were cancelled, aregvalid,

(2.) In view of the points involved in the case, it fa not necessary to state the fact of the matter of each case in great details. A counter-affidavit, inter alia, has been filed in C. W. J. C. No. 4284 of 1991. The representative matrix of facts of this case which require notice are as follows ; The petitioners were appointed as Assistant teachers by the orders of the District Superintendent of Education. The petitioners were either granted I. A. trained scale of pay or B. A. trained scale of pay and were posted on vacant posts allegedly in terms of the recommendations of the District Education Establishment Committee. The petitioners have contended that they were eligible to be promoted to the said posts, but, by reason of the impugned orders, the said orders of promotion have been cancelled. According to the petitioners, the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction as prior to passing thereof they were not given an opportunity of being heard. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 wherein, inter alia. It has been contended that the orders of promotion to hundreds of teachers were illegal, issued by one Sri Deo Chandra Jha purported to be on the recommendations of the District Education Establishment Committee, although, in fact, no such recommendations had been made. It has further been contended that Sri Deo Chandra Jha had passed the said orders of promotion in contravention of the relevant rules. It has also been contended that in some cases it was found that the cases of other teachers who were seniors to the petitioners were not considered for promotion at all. It has further been contended that even issuance of such letters do not find place in the issue registets maintained in the office of the District Superintendent of Education nor had they been counter-signed by the Deputy Development Commissioners as is required in law.

(3.) Mr. Kamlesh Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised various contentions in support of her submission. Learned Counsel submitted that as no notice had been issued to the petitioners prior to the issuance of the said orders, the same are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon a decisions of the Supreme Court in Sharwan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 309.