STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. VISHNUDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties on I.A. No. 824 of 2003 at flag 't.:. According to the stamp report dated 18.2.2003, limitation for filing the appeal expired on 13.8.2001, whereas it was filed on 13.3.2003 and as such the present application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We are of the view that sufficient explanation has been furnished for the delay causeo in filing the appeal. The delay is, therefore, condoned.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties on merit, we notice that on 18.1.1970 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Shramik High School was established at West Bokaro, Ghatotand in Hazaribagh district and on the same day the respondent no.1 was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School as its Assistant Head Master. On the date, when the said school was nationalized and taken over by the State Government. under the provisions of the Bihar Non -Government High School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, he was working in the said school as Assistant Head Master. He filed CWJC No. 2421 of 1997 (R) in this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment/ promotion to the post of Head Master in a secondary school, as the persons junior to him were already promoted. In the said writ application, it was brought to the notice of the Court that in the seniority list dated 17.9.1984 of the teachers his name was shown at Serial No. 1.4A and one Navnikant Singh, who was at Serial No. 17 was already promoted to the post of Head Master. This Court by order dated 17.2.1999 directed him to file a representation before the Director, Secondary Education, who was to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. It was also observed by this Court that it is needless to say that if any person appointed after the petitioner as Assistant Head Master and junior to him has already been promoted to the higher post of Head Master, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for such promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director passed orders contained in Memo No. 827 dated 29.9.1999 and thereby rejected his claim and held that he was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Master from the post of Assistant Teacher, which he was claiming, as his very appointment on the post of Assistant Head Master in the year 1970 was illegal. The respondent no. 1 challenged the said order in CWJC No. 3506 of 1999 (R). By order dated 13.7.2001 the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Director contained in Memo No. 827 dated 29.9.1999 and directed the respondents to promote the writ -petitioner to the post of Head Master with effect from the date when the persons junior to him were promoted to the said post. The State Government has challenged the said direction in the present appeal. According to the appellant, there was no post of Assistant Head Master on 18.1.1970 for the school in question as it has not the required number of students, i.e. 320 in average for three years. Further the post of Assistant Head Master was abolished in the year 1978 and as such the then District Education Officer wrongly declared the respondent no. 1 as Assistant Head Master in the year 1983 and sanctioned him the pay scale of Assistant Head Master. The position of the respondent no. 1 as shown in the seniority list at Serial No. 14A was provisional and is subject to approval of Department of Education, which has not been done as yet.

(3.) IN our view the Director, Secondary Education must consider the case of the respondent no. 1 for promotion to the post of Head Master and promote him if there was no hurdle in tile way to promote him with effect from the date when the persons junior to him were promoted. Hence, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondent no. 1 to be promoted to the post of Head Master is modified to the aforesaid effect and the matter is remitted to the Director to pass reasoned order at the earliest. It is needless to say that the seniority of the respondent no. 1 vis -a -vis other teachers junior to him will be maintained and he will be given all the monetary benefits also.