Jharkhand High Court
Brahmdeo Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 6 July, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 (3) AJR 718
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3510 of 2009
---
Brahmdeo Choudhary, son of Sri Mahadeo Choudhary, presently
resident of Quarter No. TF - 115, Tenughat, PO & PS: Tenughat,
District - Bokaro ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur
Division, Hazaribagh
4. District Education Officer, Bokaro
5. Secretary, Adivasi High School, Chhapargarha, PO: Champi, PS:
Petarbar, District - Bokaro ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kumar, J. C. to G.P.
---
14/06.07.2015In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 729 dated 04.03.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 has been rejected. It has further been prayed therein that the petitioner be confirmed as a Headmaster alongwith all the consequential benefits appertaining thereto.
2. The petitioner, in the year 1981, was appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher in Adivasi High School, Chhapargarha by the Managing Committee where he joined on 15th January, 1981. In the meeting held on 19th January, 1981, the Managing Committee had decided to appoint the petitioner in the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of 510-1000 with other allowances and in terms of which Office Order as contained in Memo No. 7 dated 21st January, 1981 was issued by the Secretary of the School by which the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Managing Committee was appointed in the post of Headmaster.
3. In terms of the Letter No. 109 dated 15th March, 1982, the Special Secretary of the Government of Bihar indicated about the decision of the Government to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna about taking over 72 Secondary Schools including the School in which
-2 the petitioner was Headmaster. Recommendations were made for the appointment of Teachers vide Letter No. 6404 dated 14th November, 1983 and subsequent thereto vide Office Order issued in Memo No. 8305 dated 24.11.1983, the District Education Officer, Giridih appointed amongst others the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the said School. Vide Letter dated 18.09.1995, the District Education Officer, Dhanbad- cum-Bokaro recommended the case of the petitioner for approval of his appointment as founder Headmaster in terms of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of A. K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and Others. Although, inspite of the fact that the recommendation of the case of the petitioner was made by the District Education Officer, Bokaro dated 20.12.1999 since no concrete action was forthcoming the petitioner filed a writ application in W.P.(S) No. 5294 of 2001 which was disposed of on 16.10.2001 directing the Director Secondary Education to decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order. The representation submitted by the petitioner was however rejected by order dated 25.06.2002 which led to a second round of litigation and ultimately an order was passed on 16.07.2008 in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 in which it was held that since the Director of Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi did not consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgement rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of A. K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and Others the matter was remitted to the Director Secondary Education, Ranchi to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in that regard. The petitioner preferred a representation but by the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 729 dated 04.03.2009, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the petitioner resulting in the present round of litigation.
4. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned J. C. to G. P. II.
5. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster in Adivasi High School, Chhapargarha pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee and since then the petitioner is working as a Headmaster. It has been submitted that every time the case of the -3- petitioner is being remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration the authorities are coming up with a new plea in order to deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim. It has been submitted that even though in the first round of litigation the respondent No. 2 was directed to take decision as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered in the case of A. K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and Others but ignoring the same the claim of the petitioner was rejected on altogether different ground. Subsequently when the case of the petitioner was once again remanded by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 the respondent No. 2 has come up with a new plea that the petitioner has failed to produce any proof to show that he was working as a Headmaster. It has further been submitted by Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner that all the necessary documents have been submitted which would be evident from the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11.08.2008 as the enclosures in the said representation clearly indicates the same.
6. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned J. C. to G. P. II, on the other hand, has submitted that for the appointment or promotion as Headmaster minimum 10 years of teaching experience is necessary but since the petitioner was not in possession of the said teaching experience his claim for appointment as Headmaster is not tenable. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis and authorised by the Regional Deputy Director, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh to act as In-charge Headmaster vide Letter No. 1087-91 dated 18.03.1985. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not the Headmaster from 01.01.1982 to 18.03.1985. It has further been submitted that the Circular dated 20.11.1981 is applicable in the case of Nationalised High School but since the petitioner's school was a project school, no cognizance can be taken of the said notification.
7. In the case of A. K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 1998 (2) SCC 411 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the appeal with an observation that the appellant if not already regularised as Headmaster shall be considered for regularisation w.e.f. the date on which he completed seven years of service reckoned from -4- the date on which the institution was taken over by the Government. In the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 the claim of the petitioner for being recognised as a founder Headmaster has been rejected on the basis that the petitioner has failed to give any proof that he had previously worked as a Headmaster. The representation which has been submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6868 of 2002 clearly denotes that the petitioner had enclosed documents in support of his claim but none of the documents have been discussed by the respondent no. 2 and it has simply been concluded that the petitioner could not give any proof so as to suggest otherwise. In W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 it was held as follows:-
"The appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee as Headmaster on 21st January, 1981 has not been denied and disputed by the respondents. It further appears that the petitioner was authorized to work as acting headmaster by the R.D.D.E., Hazaribagh by letter dated 18th March, 1983. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not working as acting headmaster at least after 18th March, 1983."
8. The Managing Committee of the school had appointed the petitioner as headmaster in terms of the office order dated 21 st January, 1981. In the earlier order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 01.08.2002 it was indicated that if the petitioner had worked as In- charge headmaster from 01.01.1982 he could have been given recognition as founder headmaster. This finding has perhaps escaped the attention of the author of Memo No. 729 dated 04.03.2009.
9. The impugned order dated 04.03.2009 is, therefore, against the spirit of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if the petitioner's claim is not tenable the reasons thereof should be communicated to him. The impugned order itself is devoid of any cogent reasons as none of the documents submitted by the petitioner showing his proof as founder Headmaster has been considered. Since only a passing reference has been made with the claim of the petitioner and there being no discussion on the same the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 being a throughly non-speaking order is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
-5-10. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order with reasonings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-