Jharkhand High Court
Anand Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 May, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 7238 of 2016
----------
Anand Gope .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The District Education Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Chandan Tiwary, AC to GA-I
----------
09/ 08.05.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 10.06.2016, whereby the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi has rejected the claim of petitioner for regularization on the post of Headmaster.
3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Project Girls' High School, Kokcho, West Singhbhum and he joined the post on 23.11.1982. Subsequently, the District Education Officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide order dated 13.04.1983 authorized the petitioner to work as Incharge Headmaster in High School, Kokcho, Tantnagar. It is the case of petitioner that he was the first founder Incharge Headmaster of the School in question and continued as Incharge Headmaster in the school in question till his retirement on 30.06.2014. The petitioner also passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination conducted in the month of October, 1987. After 7 years of service as Incharge Headmaster he became entitled for regularization of his service as Headmaster and payment of salary along with other consequential benefits attached to the post of Headmaster like other similarly situated persons but no action was taken by the respondents in that matter, though in terms of Rule 4 of Bihar Nationalized Secondary 1 School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983, the founder Headmaster becomes eligible for regularization on the said post after 7 years of continuous service whereas other teachers working as Headmaster become eligible for such regularization upon completion of 10 years of service. Petitioner made several representations for consideration of his case but no heed was paid. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.06.2016 impugned herein, the respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of petitioner for regularization.
Hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since petitioner has worked for more than 7 years as Headmaster Incharge, his case ought to have been considered for regularization on the said post and payment of entire benefits accrued thereupon be made in his favour. It has been further argued that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 2 (SC) and that of the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Kamdeo Prasad Shahi Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S). No. 2700 of 2006], disposed of on 12.12.2008. It has been further argued that in light of the aforesaid judgments, the case of petitioner should be considered and the impugned order should be quashed and set aside granting all the benefits to the petitioner.
5. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that already a counter-affidavit has been filed and specific stand has been taken that since the order passed by learned Single Judge in case of Kamdeo Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.07.2017 in LPA No. 477 of 2009 and as such, no relief can be given to the petitioner in light of said judgment. It has been very fairly submitted that even judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the petitioner has duly been considered in LPA No. 477 of 2009 and the Court observed that judgment rendered by learned Single Judge suffers from error of law, warranting no interference and accordingly, the same is set aside.
26. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that rightly the claim of petitioner has been rejected. Admittedly, due to work exigency petitioner was authorized to work as Incharge Headmaster and he was not appointed as Headmaster of the School. Further, the claim of petitioner that similarly situated persons have been regularized to the post of Headmaster is also not well-founded since the similarly situated persons namely Saryu Prasad Roy, Aisha Kumari, Kamdeo Prasad Sahi were initially appointed as Incharge Headmaster whereas, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher and later on, was made Incharge Headmaster after six months. Thus, his claim that he was appointed as founder Headmaster is not correct and rather, misleading.
7. In terms of Bihar Nationalized School (Service Condition) Rules, 1983 the claim of only the founder Incharge Headmaster who have completed seven years of service on the said post can be considered for regularization on the post of Headmaster.
8. So far as the matter of Kamdep Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the State of Jharkhand had preferred LPA No. 477 of 2019 against the judgment dated 12.12.2008, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S). No. 2700 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2017, set aside the order of learned Single Judge.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.K. Pradhan v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 411 has held as under:
"1. The appellant was the Headmaster of an unrecognised high school which was taken over by the Government of Bihar under Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (33 of 1982). The appellant represented to the State Government for regularisation of his services which was not accepted and by order dated 6-12-1985, the Government rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground that he had not completed seven years of service from the date of taking over of the institution. The appellant then approached the Patna High Court which, relying upon a Full Bench decision of its own, dismissed the petition. That is how the matter is before us.3
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the Full Bench decision has since been upheld by this Court in Ram Ballabh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [ SLPs (C) Nos. 4828-30 of 1986 decided on 5-5-1986 : 1988 PLJR 70] by the following order:
"We affirm the view taken by the High Court to the effect that a Headmaster has no right to be automatically absorbed as a government servant in case of an unrecognised school being taken over by the Government. The special leave petitions are dismissed with these observations.
We are told by the learned counsel that even if the petitioners are liable to be screened by the appropriate committee there should be no delay in completing the screening insofar as the petitioners are concerned. We have no doubt that when these observations are pointed out to the appropriate authority the committee concerned will deal with the matter expeditiously and dispose the same in accordance with law."
3. The controversy, therefore, that the services of the employees working in an unrecognised institution are not automatically taken over by the Government, is to be treated as settled by the order passed in the above petition.
4. The fact, however, remains that the appellant has since completed more than seven years of service and is now eligible and for being considered for regularisation.
5. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with the 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 the date on which the institution was taken over by the Government. There will be no order as to costs."
9. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reiterating the same view in LPA No. 477 of 2019 (the State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Kamdeo Prasad Sahi), has held as under:
"10. In the aforesaid background, when the learned Single Judge did not accept the claim of the writ petitioner as having worked as In-charge Headmaster of the School from 1978 onwards, the direction to treat him as regular Headmaster of the School from the date of his completing 7 years from 20.08.1986 when he was appointed as In- charge Headmaster of the School by the Order of the District Education Officer, was not inconsonance with the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Pradhan (Supra).
411. In such circumstances, the reliance of the writ petitioner upon the recommendation of District Education Officer as enclosed at Annexure-5 cannot improve upon his case any further. Though counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent herein has relied upon the Notification No. 300 dated 01.06.1999 whereunder the Bihar Nationalized School (Service Condition) Rules, 1983 were adopted in respect of the Project Schools teachers, but learned counsel for the writ petitioner has failed to show that after having taking over as a Project School, such appointment of the writ petitioner was confirmed by the Vidyalaya Seva Board either.
12. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2008 suffers from errors of law warranting interference. Accordingly it is set aside. The appeal is allowed."
10. In view of clear finding of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Court, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-
5