Md. Sirajuddin and others vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.B. Sinha and G.C. Bharuka, JJ.—In this application the petitioners who are two in numbers have prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.12.91 passed by the District Magistrate-Cum-Chairman District-Education Establishment Committee, Katihar whereby the petitioners have been denied the B. A. trained pay scale from 7.4.1973. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 20.8.1965 in the alleged scale of pay of I. A. untrained teacher He allegedly improved his academic qualifications by passing the B. A. examination in the year 1967. He thereafter successfully completed the teachers training examination in the year 1970.

The petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23.11.1970 in the pay scale of matric trained teacher and later on he increased his qualification as a B. A. trained one. He passed his B. A. examination in the year 1965 and completed his teacher''s training examination in the sessions 1965-67. An interview was allegedly held for the grant of B. A. trained pay scale to the eligible teachers in the district of Purnea. According to the petitioners, whereas the other participants were granted the B. A. trained scale of pay, they were refused the said benefit.

The petitioners contacted the District Supdt. of Education, Purnea and he by a memo bearing No. 7786-7812 dated 22.5.1973 upon reference of the letter of the Directorate dated 13.5.1973 observed that possibly the petitioner No. 1 had made certain suppressions with regard to his obtaining degree of B. A. The name of the petitioner No. 2 was, however, not mentioned therein.

The petitioners thereafter filed a representation before the Director but the said representation was not disposed of. In the meantime, the erstwhile (sic) District was bifurcated into two districts as Katihar and Purnea in the year 1974 and the petitioner''s services were retained in the newly created district of Katihar.

According to the petitioners in the District of Katihar, some persons who are junior to the petitioners also have been granted B. A. scale of pay.

The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 399 of 1990 which was disposed of by a Bench by an order dated 12.8.1991 holding :

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar to examine the grievance of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order, the petitioners are entitled for B. A. trained scale with effect from 7.4.1973. As the claim of the petitioners is pending since long, we hereby direct the Chairman of the committee to get the matter examined and disposed of by the aforesaid committee within a period of three months from the date of production receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that in case for some reason or the other, the meeting of the Establishment Committee is not possible it will be proper for the Chairman himself to decide the matter and dispose of the same by a reasoned order.

With the aforesaid, the application is disposed of.

Thereafter by reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application the petitioner''s representation had been rejected.

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the said counter affidavit, it has been contended that the respondent No. 2 in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.8.1991 passed in CWJC No. 399 of 1990 the respondent No. 2 formed a sub-committee headed by D. D. C. Katihar to examine the case of the petitioners. The Sub-Committee after hearing the petitioner and examining the document submitted its report to the respondent No. 4. The said report was considered by the respondent No. 2 and the matter was disposed of by the impugned order. The respondents have contended that the petitioner''s case is covered by the circular letters of the State dated 5.9.1979 and 23.3.1990 as contained in Annexures C and D to the counter affidavit.

It has further been contended that the petitioners have been given higher scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1990 on the basis of approved seniority list of the district of Katihar.

It has also been contended that in Katihar the office of Superintendent of Education started functioning from 1.4.1974 and the seniority list was prepared in the year 1979.

It has been stated when the District was given B. A. trained units in 1979 including the petitioners who were given B. A. trained/scale from 1.4.1980.

In our opinion the impugned order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. As the petitioners had been teachers working in the schools of the erstwhile Purnea district, they cannot loose their seniority only because their services had been retained in the Katihar district.

In this case their seniority should be reckoned with effect from the date of entry in their services and in accordance with the seniority Rules prevailing at the time when admittedly the Katihar was not a separate district. The cases of the petitioners were therefore, required to be considered afresh, as according to the petitioners even persons who were juniors to them have been granted B. A. trained scale. The case of the petitioners was required to be considered in that context and the contention raised by the petitioners in the earlier writ application as also in the representation filed by them before the Director should have been considered on their own merits.

From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the concerned respondents failed to take into consideration relevant fact and took into consideration irrelevant matters while passing the impugned order.

The respondents should have also considered as to why the names of the petitioners were not approved in the seniority list of Purnea district as it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners had all along been working at Purnea. The respondents also have taken into consideration an irrelevant matter i.e. that office of the Dist. Supdt. of Education Katihar from 1.4.1975 which has got nothing to do with regard to the seniority of the petitioners.

If the District Magistrate of Katihar was not in a position to decide the matter relating to the petitioner as according to him the matter should have been dealt with by the District. Education Establishment Committee Purnea, he should have referred the matter to the Director Secondary Education.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application cannot be sustained.

In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application is set aside and we direct the Director Primary Education to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Director must dispose of the petitioner''s representation with ulmost expedition and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will however, be no order as to costs.