Jharkhand High Court
Mallika Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4651 of 2013
Malika Yadav wife of Late Rohit Kumar Yadav, R/o Mohalla, P.O.
& P.S.- Maheshpur, District-Pakur .........Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3.The Director, Primary Education, Department of Human
Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at
Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4.The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.-
Pakur, District- Pakur ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Sheela Prasad
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P. II
3/06.10.2015: This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.10.2004 passed by District Superintendent of Education- cum- Sub Divisional Education Officer, Pakur whereby the representation of petitioner has been rejected.
It appears that originally, this writ application was filed by Rohit Kumar Yadav( original petitioner) who died during the pendency of this writ application and thereafter in his place, his widow ,namely, Malika Yadav, has been substituted vide order dated 26.03.2014.
2. It is stated that earlier the original petitioner ( husband of present petitioner) had filed a writ application vide WPS No. 4421 of 2004 along with others for a direction commanding the respondents to consider their cases for promotion to the post of B.Sc Trained Scale from the date, they had passed teachers training examination.
3. In the said writ application, they have stated that though they are also eligible for consideration for promotion in the B.Sc. Trained Scale, but their cases has not been considered and their juniors promoted. After hearing both the parties, a Bench of this Court ordered that original petitioner shall file representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur along with documents showing that he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the higher grade, on which his juniors were promoted. In the said order, the respondents, District Superintendent of Education, Pakur was directed to scrutinize the representation of the petitioner and if on scrutiny, petitioner was found eligible for promotion then his case be placed before the Selection Committee, which will take decision and communicate to the petitioner. In alternative, if the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur found that petitioner is not eligible for promotion then he rejects the representation of the petitioner and communicate it to the petitioner -2-
4. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, original petitioner had filed representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur and his representation was disposed of by Annexure-11. From perusal of Annexure-11, I find that the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur admits that original petitioner is B.Sc. Trained, but he rejected the application of the original petitioner on the ground that earlier he had not made any claim for such promotion.
5. In my view, the aforesaid reason given by the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur is against the direction given to him by this Court. Because in the aforesaid writ order, this Court had specifically ordered and directed the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur to scrutinize the representation of the petitioner and if he found the petitioner eligible for promotion then his case be placed before the Selection Committee. Since the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur admits that petitioner is eligible for promotion, therefore, he is duty bound to place his case before the Selection Committee. Since, in the instant case without sending the file before the Selection Committee, the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur has rejected his representation, therefore, I find that the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur has violated the direction passed by this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I quash office order dated 27.10.2004 ( Annexure-11), so far it relates to original petitioner, namely, Rohit Kumar Yadav and I direct the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur to send the case of original petitioner to selection committee for consideration of his case for promotion. I further direct that if selection committee found that original petitioner has been wrongly not given promotion then the selection committee shall give notional promotion to original petitioner and give monetary benefit to the present petitioner from the date from which the juniors of original petitioner has been promoted. This order must be complied within four months from the date of production of the order by the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-