SATYA DEO RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4311 of 2003 whereby the order dated 30.4.2003 giving charge of Officiating Principal to the appellant was quashed. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 5 herein had challenged the said order dated 30.4.2003 alleging that the writ petitioner being senior to the respondent No. 5 i.e. appellant in the present case was being made to work under the present appellant as he had been given the charge of Officiating Principal of Government Polytechnic, Ranchi. Incidentally, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the writ petitioner was transferred to the Government Polytechnic, Kharsawan as In-charge Principal vide order dated 31.12.2008. However, subsequently by order dated 31.12.2010 he was again transferred back to the same Government Polytechnic, Ranchi as Lecturer wherein the present Appellant was working as Officiating Principal.

(2.) Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the letter No. 7 N.V.R.-06/2004 Ka. 442 dated 25.1.2006 observed that as per the said letter the Government has taken a decision to give charge of Principal to the senior most Lecturer. In such background, learned Single Judge found the subsistence of the impugned order dated 30.4.2003 against the Government Policy itself and, therefore, unsustainable in law. The writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment inter-alia stated that the writ petition had been rendered infructuous during its pendency because of the transfer of the writ petitioner from the Government Polytechnic, Ranchi to Government Polytechnic, Kharsawan on 31.12.2008 itself. He was however transferred back on his own represents vide notification dated 31.12.010. Therefore, the petitioner could not have complained of being made to serve under the junior. Writ petitioner represents is annexed as Annexure-3 while the order of transfer is at Annexure-4 being notification No. 3569 to the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter dated 25.1.2006 relief upon by the learned Single Judge also reveals that in the matter of even an in-charge working arrangement, seniority cum merit as we, as Rules of reservation under the state Government were to be followed. It is submitted that the appellant is the senior most member of Scheduled Caste community in the exciting teaching cadre in the Government Polytechnic, before, he is the fittest and competent person to be posted as In-charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic, Ranchi. However, the aforesaid aspect as contained in the letter dated 25.1.2006 has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while quashing the arrangement under which the present appellant was given charge as Officiating Principal, vide order dated 30.4.2003. In such circumstance, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.