HRISHIKESH PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naveen Kumar, JC to SC I.

(2.) THE petitioner was an aspirant for promotion to the post of Head Master in the year 1990 itself. The respondents instead of promoting him, passed an order on 20.4.1990 promoting others to that post (i.e. to the post of Head Master) but left out the petitioner and one Guru Prasad Mahato. Guru Prasad Mahato filed a Writ Application and it appears that on the basis of the order passed therein, an order was passed on 12.7.1992 by Annexure 3 whereby and whereunder he was adjusted on the vacant post of a Head Master and was also given appropriate scale attached thereto. The petitioner, drawing the example of said Guru Prasad Mahato and also taking the plea, of discrimination to the effect that others who were junior to him had been given promotion, filed a representation on 15.12.1992 by Annexure 4 but even then, his pleas did not find favour thereby compelling him to move the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 1139 of 1994(R). In that case, the respondents took a plea that final gradation list was in the process of being prepared with the help of computers and the real picture would be clear only after the final gradation list took shape. Consequently, the Writ Court directed that after final gradation list was prepared with the help of the computers, the case of the petitioner would then be considered for the post of Head Master and if it was found that injustice had been done and he was not given promotion from his due date then he would file a representation which would be disposed off in accordance with law.

(3.) IT appears that the aforementioned Rules of 1993 was published on 9.7.1993 making it retrospectively effective from 1.1.1986. It appears that following the aforementioned 1993 Rules, the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa passed an order on 4.4.1998 cancelling the promotions of 55 teachers who had been promoted to the post of Head Master following the old Rules. That order became a subject matter of challenge in the case of Ruth Topno and Ors. v. State, being CWJC No. 2018 of 1998 (R). That writ application was allowed and the order dated 4.4.1998 was set aside.