Vishwanath Dubey and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The grievance of the petitioners, in this case, is that despite the fact that they are possessing requisite qualifications and have been working as acting Principals of the various Nationalized High Schools of the State, they have not been regularized as Principals of the concerned Schools. The petitioners are aggrieved on account of the fact that by wrongly applying a recently introduced Rules in the Jharkhand Nationalized secondary school service conditions rules retrospectively, the Respondents-authorities have illegally deprived the petitioners of their claim of being promoted to the post of Principals of the said Schools, where they have been working since long functioning as acting Principals.

The case of the petitioners is that they possess Post-Graduate degrees as also the Basic Training or Diploma-in-Teaching or Diploma-in-aid and Certificate of Basic Teachers Training, issued by the Government Training Colleges.

Since after the enactment of the Bihar non-Governmental secondary school (administration & taking over control) Act, 1981, the control and management of the respective Schools, where the petitioners are employed, have been taken over by the State Government.

After taking over of the control and management of the Schools, the State Government had also formulated certain Rules u/s 9 of the Bihar non-Governmental secondary school (administration & taking over control) Act, 1981 and have laid down the Educational qualifications as also the other relevant eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster of the School. Upon adopting the Rules, a Gradation list was prepared consisting of the names of all such Teachers who did possess requisite eligibility criteria and a large number of teachers were absorbed by way of promotion on the post of Headmasters of the various Schools. Subsequently, upon the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, it fell upon the State of Jharkhand in the concerned Department to prepare a fresh Gradation List and to undertake the process for granting promotions to the deserving and eligible candidates for their promotion to the post of Headmasters.

The grievance of the petitioners is that though their names appear in the aforementioned Gradation List but they have been deprived of the benefit of promotion on the ground that they do not qualify as per the provisions contained in Clause 4 (1) of Chapter 3 of Jharkhand Nationalized secondary school service condition rules.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the process for filling up the vacancies on the posts of Headmasters in the various Schools, by promotion, in accordance with the eligibility criteria stipulated in the original Rules, was undertaken even sometime in the year 2000 and the same process ought to have continued till the existing vacancies were filled up and the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits, which had already accrued to them when the process for granting promotions was initiated in the year 2000 since according to the then existing Rules, the petitioners had already acquired the requisite qualifications and, as such, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their rights by retrospective application of the newly inserted Clause 4 (1) of Chapter 3 of Jharkhand Nationalized secondary school service condition rules.

Learned Counsel submits further that the same issue fell for consideration before a Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7844 of 2006 in the case of Yudhisthir Mahato and Ors.-versus-State of Jharkhand and Ors.. Upon considering the background history and the facts relating to the case of the writ petitioners who too had demanded their promotions to the post of Headmasters, this Court had observed as follows:

In view of the above discussions, I find and hold that the consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Headmaster, who were qualified and eligible in accordance with the rule applicable at the time of initiation of the process of consideration, cannot be denied on the ground of coming into force of the new Rule of 2004, which has not been made applicable with retrospective effect. For that purpose, Rule 2004 cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners with retrospective effect.

Learned Counsel adds that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in the aforesaid case of Yudhistir Mahato (Supra) and the petitioners also deserve the same benefit.

Though no counter affidavit has been separately filed on behalf of the Respondents but having gone through the judgment passed in the case of Yudhistir Mahato and Ors. (Supra), learned Counsel for the Respondents affirms that the facts in the present case is identical to the facts of the case of the writ petitioners in Yudhistir Mahato''s case (Supra).

I have gone through the judgment passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Yudhistir Mahato and Ors. (Supra) and I am satisfied that the identical issues as raised in the present writ application, were earlier raised by the writ petitioners in the aforesaid case and the same was decided in favour of the writ petitioners therein. The ratio as decided in Yudhistir Mahato ''s case (Supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners who were qualified and were eligible in accordance with the Rules applicable at the time of initiation of the process for considering their promotions in the year 2000, cannot be denied promotion on the ground of insertion of the new Rule of 2004 by applying the same with retrospective effect. The new Rule of 2004, cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners with retrospective effect. The candidatures of the petitioners shall have to be considered by the Respondents in the light of the above observations.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the Respondents.