MURLI MOHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier been appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of the Jhikar-hati Middle School. Pakur on 26.7.1970. Subsequently, when the private schools were taken over by the State of Bihar, petitioner's school was also taken over. But in terms of the rules, petitioner's services were not recognized from the date when the petitioner had been appointed by the Managing Committee. There fore, the petitioner moved before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1891 of 1976 whereby the order under which petitioner's services were recognized with effect from March, 1974 was quashed and a direction was issued to treat the petitioner as recognized teacher with effect from the date of his initial appointment. Pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court, District Superintendent of Education, Dumka vide its order dated 24.8.1977 as contained in memo No. 77 recognized the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.7.1970. In course of time, petitioner became B.A trained on 2.8.1973 and the B.A trained scale was given to the petitioner but it was given with effect from 1.4.1981 whereas junior to the petitioner, namely, Bijay Kumar Ghose was given B.A trained scale with effect from 10.6.1974. Under that situation, the petitioner moved to the Patna High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 778 of 1990 which was disposed of directing the District Education Establishment Committee, Sahibganj to consider the claim of the petitioner with respect to the shifting of effective date of B.A trained scale with effect from 2.8.1973 or any other date in accordance with law. Pursuant to that order, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur passed an order as contained in memo No. 483 dated 28.4.2005 whereby the committee refused to grant B.A. trained scale with effect from 2.8.1973 on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of junior to the petitioner. That order as contained in Annexure 1 has been challenged to be bad.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein stand which has been taken in support of Annexure 1 is as follows: