SHYAM DEO PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure-7), by which respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-IV scale. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to promote the petitioner in Grade-III post after completion of required qualifying service period. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to promote him in Grade-IV scale from the date, when the juniors to him have been given promotion in the said grade and also to pay the arrears of difference of salary and other consequential benefits to petitioner after granting him promotion in Grade- III as well as in Grade-IV scale.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13.05.1987 and in pursuant to that, he has given his joining on 23.05.1987 in Govt. Middle School, Meerganj (Satgawan). It is the case of the petitioner that he passed his Teacher's Training Examination in the session of 1980-82 and thereafter passed, B.A. Examination in the year 1987 and as such, he was a Trained Graduate Teacher from the beginning of his joining as Assistant Teacher. As per provisions of Rule-6 of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 the respondents are duty bound to identify the availability of posts of Grade-III on 1st of April of every year to give promotion to Grade-III scale. As per Rule-5, all teachers who are Trained and has completed service of 12 years in Grade-II scale are eligible to get promotion in Grade-III scale. However, the respondents in violation of the said rule, have not identified and disclosed category-wise vacancies of Grade-III scale to which promotion was to be given from Grade-II scale. It is the specific case of the petitioner that juniors to him, namely Ms. Nayanpyari Chaturvedi and Ms. Meena Kumari who were appointed on 10.09.1987 and 11.09.1987 respectively, have been considered and granted promotion to Grade-IV scale but petitioner has been denied the same, which is apparent from memo dated 19.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his representations dated 27.09.2016 and 03.10.2016, requested the respondents concerned to consider his case for promotion to Grade-IV scale.