RAM RAKSHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) IT appears that earlier the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 1049/2001 for a direction to the respondent -authorities to grant B.A. Trained Scale to him in terms of the recommendations of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Superintendent of Education to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and consequent thereto, the impugned order has been passed, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has challenged this writ petition on two grounds that: - -(i) the writ petition is not maintainable because no legal right has accrued to the petitioner, moreover, it is a minority institution, in which the Court has no jurisdiction to make order under Article 226 of the Constitution and (ii) the impugned order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education under the authority of the Court and not under any statutory provisions. The further argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is that there were certain circumstances that the petitioner did not seek permission for appearing at the B.A. Examination or he did not take any leave for that purpose, rather he took the salary of the entire month in which the examination was held and therefore, doubt arose as to whether the degree was obtained or not. That matter is still under enquiry and till the enquiry is completed, no decision can be taken for recommending his name because it is doubtful whether he has obtained the degree or not. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has countered this argument saying that the petitioner has taken permission but he has not refuted the claim of the respondents that he had not taken the salary of the relevant period when the examination had taken place. He is of the view that notwithstanding the enquiry, since the petitioner has obtained a Graduation degree, i.e., mere to defeat his claim, despite any enquiry he should have been recommended for the promotion. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Annexure 21 of the supplementary affidavit, also submitted that there is mal -administration in that institution and in that circumstances, the authority should have acted and they are bound to act and as such, this writ petition is maintainable.