Patna High Court
Prabhu Sharan Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 16 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)BLJR81
JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Navin Ganesh Pathshala, Kadamkuan, Patna which seems to have been taken over by the Government sometime in 1975 under the provisions of Bihar Non-Government Elementary School (Taking Over of Control and Management) Act, 1976. He has retired on 31.12.1992. At the time of his appointment he was merely Matriculate. Subsequently he enhanced his qualification by passing I.A. in 1966 and completed Teachers Training in 1976. According to the petitioner, pursuant to enhancement of his qualification he filed an application before the District Superintendent of Education (hereinafter, in short, referred to as respondent-D.S.E.) for granting him the I.A. trained scale. By order dated 22.9.1980 (Annexure '3') the D.S.E. allowed him the I.A. trained scale from 1.1.1977.
2. Being aggrieved by grant of I.A. trained scale to the petitioner one Paras Nath Pandey and Anr. who were Assistant Teacher of Elementary School in the district of Patna filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3864 of 1991 claiming I.A. trained scale on the ground that they are senior to the petitioner. Hon'ble L.M. Sharma, J. (as he then was) disposed of the said writ application on 24.11.1981 observing therein that the petitioners should file representation before the Director for redressal of their said grievance which should be disposed of within two months. Accordingly, they filed representations in February, 1982. But since it was not disposed of within the time fixed by this Court, they filed another writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3925 of 1982 on 30.4.1982 which was disposed of by Hon'ble S.B. Sanyal, J. on 30.4.1984. His Lordship after expressing utter disgust and displeasure at the inaction on the part of the Director directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of the judgment and remedy the injustice complained of.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction to the Director on the grounds similar to one taken in case of Paras Nath Pandey and Ors. (supra) a large number of other Assistant Teachers of Patna District also preferred writ applications in this Court claiming similar benefits as granted to the petitioner. The details of some of the writ applications as borne out from Annexure '6' are set out hereinbelow:
1. C.W.J.C. No. : Ram Swaroop Singh and Ors.
1429 of 1984
2. C.W.J.C. No. : Shrideo Pd. Sah and Ors.
1238 of 1984
3. C.W.J.C. No. : Shrideo Pd. Sah and Ors.
3205 of 1984
4. C.W.J.C. No.: Lakhandeo Sharma and Ors.
778 of 1984
5. C.W.J.C. No.: Ramanand and Ors.
2467 of 1984
6. C.W.J.C. No. : Chandrika Singh and Ors.
3218 of 1984
7. C.W.J.C. No.: Chandeshwar Pd. and Ors.
2526 of 1984
8. C.W.J.C. No.: Ram Ekbal Singh and Ors. 1450 of 1984
9. C.W.J.C. No. : Sunil Kumar Prasad and Ors.
2559 of 1984
10. C.W.J.C. No.: Sideheshwar Pd. and Ors.
2472 of 1984
11. C.W.J.C. No.: Kirshnanand Sharma and Ors.
1835 of 1984
12. C.W.J.C. No.: Nageshwar Prasad and Ors.
1138 of 1984
13. C.W.J.C. No.: Prayaglal Sigh and Ors.
972 of 1984
14. C.W.J.C. No.: Krishnanadan Sharma and Ors.
540 of 1984
15. C.W.J.C. No.: Suresh Sahu and Ors.
1601 of 1984
16. C.W.J.C. No.: Shiv Narayan Sinha and Ors.
4542 of 1984
17. C.W.J.C. No.: Sharada Nand Pd.and Ors.
4625 of 1984
18. C.W.J.C. No.: Ram Bilas Prasad and Ors.
447 of 1984
19. C.W.J.C. No.: Bhubaneshwar Prasad of Magadh Junior Middle 2751 of 1983 School, Kadamkuan, Patna.
20. C.W.J.C. No.: Arun Kumar Singh of Gautam Budha 2752 of 1983 Madhya Vidyalaya, Mahendru, Patna.
21. C.W.J.C. No.: Krishna Mohan Prasad Singh of Navin Ganesh 4539 of 1984 Pathshala, Kadamkuan, Patna 2710 of 1984
3. It appears that apart from these petitioners. I.A. trained scale was granted also to Smt. Punam Mahadhariar and Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma of Middle School, Kankarbagh and Bihari Sao Lane of Patna, respectively.
4. The learned Director pursuant to order of this Court on a detailed consideration by his order dated 23rd March, 1985 came to the conclusion that in view of the Government policy decision, grant of higher scale was not permissible on mere enhancement of educational qualification. He specifically noticed that the Department Circular No. 20 dated 29th February, 1966 having given rise to certain misconception was subsequently clarified to the effect that mere acquisition of qualification could not lead to entitlement of higher pay scale. He also held that the petitioner was promoted to a post in higher scale of I.A. trained by losing sight of this fact. He also noticed that no final gradation list has been prepared till that date and the tentative gradation list only related to the teachers who were employed by Patna Municipal Corporation. In this gradation list the name of the petitioner was not there. Accordingly, he took the view that grant of promotion or higher scale to the petitioner in Intermediate Trained Scale was bad and he cancelled all the promotions including that of the petitioner and other based on the analogy or basis of the petitioner. This order has been filed as Annexure '6'. It also appears that the aforesaid Paras Nath Pandey had also filed Contempt Application being M.J.C. No. 416 of 1984, which was disposed of on 10.4.1985, for enforcement of the direction issued by this Court as above wherein the then Director, Primary Education had slated that promotion granted to the petitioner had been cancelled without hearing.
5. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1806 of 1985 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 2.8.1985, raising a grievance therein that order dated 23.3.1985 anulling the promotion of the petitioner to I.A. trained scale had been passed illegally and without hearing. this Court by the order as contained in Annexure '7' directed the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent-Director who was required to dispose of the same by reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of that order. But no statement has been made in writ application to show that the petitioner had ever filed any representation as directed by this Court to ventilate his grievance.
6. Anyhow, pursuant to the order passed in the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 416 of 1984 the grievance of the respective teachers were again taken up by the respondent-Director wherein notices were also issued to the petitioner but he except filing his show cause did not appear. The learned Director by his order dated 17.6.86 on a detailed consideration of fact cancelled all the illegally granted promotions including that of the petitioner for the very reasons as had already been noticed in the earlier order of the Director (Annexure '6') referred to above. This is the impugned order which has been filed in Annexure '8'. The petitioner again attempted to challenge the Annexure '8' by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3216 of 1986 but withdrew the same on 29.6.1986. Since the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the Patna State Administrative Tribunal, according to the petitioner, he thereafter filed Service Case No. 103 of 1987 before the Tribunal. But before his case could be disposed of the Tribunal became defunct in 1990 because of the repeal of the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act. Now after three years of the abolition of the Administrative Tribunal the writ application is being filed.
7. In large number of cases including C.W.J.C. No. 1247 of 1992 disposed of on 14.12.92 Indu Bhushan Prasad v. State this Court has repeatedly held that in the case of Assistant Teachers of Taken Over Elementary Schools mere enhancement of educational qualification per se is no ground for claiming promotion to the posts in higher grades like that of Intermediate Trained or Graduate Trained since grant of such promotions deeds on factors like the position in the gradation list, eligibility, availability of the posts and the policy of the Government pertaining to grant and filling up of such promotional posts. The learned Director pursuant to the order of this Court has by a speaking order assigned good reasons based on facts and the principles of promotion laid down by the Government. We have gone through the order in detail. Mr. Tiwary learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out any tenable legal basis for interfering with the impugned order.
8. Moreover, the petitioner is also guilty of laches since he has sought to challenge the order dated 17.6.1986 by filing the writ application in 1993. His plea that he was pursuing an alternate remedy before the Tribunal is also of no avail to him since the Bihar Administrative Tribunal, to the knowledge of everyone, had become defunct and subsequently abolished in 1990. Still there is a delay of about three years. In the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India (1992) 2 (SCC) 136, the Supreme Court in para-8 has held thus:
There is another aspect of the matter. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Others are then justified in acting on that belief. This is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be filled promptly....
9. For the reasons aforesaid in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
10. I agree.