MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERD Mr. Nilesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra J.C. to G.P.I.

(2.) FROM Annexure -20 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is appears that the notification contained in Memo No. 2231 dated 26.9.2000 was under challenge in W.P. (S) No. 2395 of 2001 with W.P. (S) No. 2362 of 2001 with W.P. (S) No. 3995 of 2001; whereby time bound promotion given to the petitioner was cancelled and the direction was made to recover the amount paid to them in excess in view of the time bound promotion. This Court by order dated 20.1.2003 allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and quashed the notification contained in Memo No. 2230 dated 26.9.2000 so far as the those writ petitioners are concerned.

(3.) IN the present writ application exactly similarly nature of the order is stated above is under challenge which is contained in Memo No. 2230 dated 26.9.2000 Issued under the signature of the District Superintendent Education, Dumka cancelling the time bound promotion of the petitioners for recovery of excess amount paid in view of the time bound promotion with regard to science and trained teachers. Therefore, it appears that the only differences in the present case is that this case relates to science and trained teachers whereas earlier writ applications which have been allowed vide Annexures 20 and 21 to the supplementary affidavit related to other than science and trained teachers, except petitioner No. 44 whose case is fully covered by the order passed in the earlier case; otherwise the challenge of the said notification is exactly on the same and similar footing and therefore, in my view, the order, as contained in Annexures - 20 and 21 to the supplementary affidavit, passed by this Court setting aside the notification as contained in Memo No. 2231 dated 26.9.2000 with also apply in present case in toto and consequently the notification as contained in Memo No. 2230 of 2231 dated 26.9.2000 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka so far as the petitioner are concerned is hereby quashed.