RAJEEV SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in dispute that trained Graduate/Post Graduate Teachers whose date of appointment was on or before 09 -05 -1989 were to be promoted to the post of Master. After obtaining the service particulars of such teachers from the concerned Chief Education Officers, the Director School Education, Jammu vide his order No. DSEJ/Ang/Prom/M/920 -27 dated 25 -5 -2005 sanctioned the promotion of such teachers. One of them was the petitioner. After the promotion the petitioner joined on the promotional post. Subsequent thereto the Chief Education Officer, Kathua vide his letter No. CEOK/WS/8264 dated 13 -9 -2005 and CEOK/WS/6794 -95 dated 16 -8 -2005 informed the Director that the date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lab. Assistant stood wrongly communicated to him as date of his appointment as Teacher and his date of appointment as a teacher was 10 -9 -1992. After receiving the said information in regard to the petitioner and one another Teacher similarly placed the Director, School Education vide his order dated 8 -11 -2005 ordered as follows: In view of the facts stated above, Sh Manohar Lal, Ex -Teacher, GMS Rajpura (Ghagwal) and Sh Rajeev Sharma Ex -Teacher HSS, Hatli were not eligible for their promotion as Master in view of their date of posting/joining in the teacher cadre, as such, their promotion as master is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. The concerned DDOs shall relieve these masters immediately and direct them to report to the Chief Education officer, Kathua for their further adjustment as teacher in the District.

(2.) BEING aggrieved of the cancellation of his promotion by the above order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy. A.G is that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, but despite his dis -entitlement under a mistaken belief that his date of appointment was on or before 9 -5 -1989, he was accorded promotion. When the mistake was detected the promotion order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was not entitled to any show cause notice or hearing because of the fact that his order of promotion was based upon mistaken belief. He was not eligible for promotion, therefore, his promotion could be validly cancelled without providing him any opportunity of hearing. The opportunity of hearing or enquiry in view of the fact that he was not eligible would have only been an idle formality. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.