SUDHIR BECK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing of office order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure-7) whereby the promotion granted to the petitioners in B.Sc. Trained scale on 7th July, 1992 and 17th July, 1992 has been cancelled and further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioners on account of grant of B.Sc. Trained scale in terms of impugned order of cancellation dated 29.03.2010.

(2.) The factual matrix in brief is that in pursuance to advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary/Middle Schools under District Superintendent of Education, Gumla against vacant and sanctioned posts, petitioners applied for the said posts and after following the due procedure, the names of the petitioners were recommended by the District Education Establishment Committee for appointment. Accordingly, petitioner no.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained Scale though he had qualification of M.Sc., B.Ed at the time of appointment and joined on 24.04.1988 in Government School, Raikera in the district of Simdega. In view of the vacancy and having possessed the requisite qualifications, the petitioner no.1 was considered by the respondents for grant of B.Sc. Trained scale with effect from the date of joining. After completion of 12 years of services, the petitioner no.1 was granted Senior Selection grade. Similarly, petitioner no.2 was appointed as Assistant Science Teacher being untrained having B.Sc qualification. After completion of training, the petitioner no.2 has been given B.Sc Trained scale on 17th July, 199 While enjoying the aforesaid scale, a complaint was lodged by one similarly situated person and on the basis of said complaint, documents were sought for by the respondents from the petitioners for verification and after such verification no irregularity was found. But to the utter surprise and consternation, impugned order dated 29.03.2010 was issued by cancelling the promotion order of the petitioners dated 7th July, 1992 and 17th July, 1992 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the instant writ application has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the impugned order dated 29.02010 as contained in Annexure-7 is illegal and void being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents could not have taken away the vested right accrued in violation of principles of natural justice since in the instant case no notice of show cause was issued prior to issuance of impugned order. It has further been submitted that 1993 Rule cannot be made applicable retrospectively so as to take away accrued right and benefit as has been decided by the Honourable High Court as well as Honourable Apex Court. In order to butress the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decisions as reported in (2002) 3 JCR 273 (Jhr) (Chitranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of BiharOrs.), 2008 (1) JLJR 230 (Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Sanjay KumarOrs. Vs. The State of JharkhandOrs), 2017 (1) JBCJ 401 (Nil Kantha Mondal Vs. State of JharkhandOrs.) and (2013) 12 sCc 580 (Kusheswar Nath Pandey Vs. State of Bihar And Others) Paragraph nos.8, 910.