Raghunandan Koerie Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/109220
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnJan-10-2017
AppellantRaghunandan Koerie
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
1 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi l.p.a. no. 278 of 2015 raghunandan koerie, son of late giridhari koerie, resident of banta hazam, po- banta hazam, ps- silli, district – ranchi (jharkhand) … … … … petitioner versus 1. state of jharkhand 2. the secretary, department of human resources development, government of jharkhand, ranchi 3. the director, secondary education of human resources development department, government of jharkhand, ranchi 4. district education officer, dhurwa, ranchi 5. the secretary, department of human resources development, government of bihar, p.o. & p.s. - kankar bagh, district – patna 6. the director, secondary education, department of human resources development, government of bihar, patna … … … … respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice d. n. patel hon'ble mr. justice ratnaker bhengra ----- for the petitioner: m/s. shashank shekahr, advocate for the respondents: m/s. atanu banerjee, g.a. ------ 08/dated:10. h january, 2017 oral judgment. per d.n. patel, j1 this letters patent appeal has been preferred against the the judgment and order delivered by learned single judge in w.p.(s) no.2136 of 2013 dated 8th april, 2015, whereby the petition preferred by the present appellant was dismissed by the learned single judge. hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present letters patent appeal. the promotion granted from the post of peon to clerk in 1994 has been withdrawn in 2013 by the government. appellant retired on 30.06.2013. this action of the government has not been quashed, hence, this letters patent appeal.2) factual matrix ● this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as class-iv employee with the respondents-erstwhile state of bihar on 1st june, 1976. ● on 16th august, 1990 adhoc promotion was given to this 2 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 appellant on the post of clerk (annexure 2). this adhoc promotion was further continued vide order dated 13th march, 1993 and ultimately an order was passed that till the regular clerk is appointed, the adhoc promotion given to this appellant will be continued. ● vide order dated 14th september, 1994 (annexure 6), the appellant was promoted on the post of clerk. this order was passed by the district education officer, ranchi. ● thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) continued on the post of clerk till the order of demotion was passed i.e. 18th february, 2013 (annexure 11). ● the order of demotion dated 18th february, 2013 (annexure11) which was passed after approximately 19 years of promotion was challenged by this appellant in w.p.(s) no. 2136 of 2013 on several grounds including the ground that no notice for demotion was given to this appellant. few facts sought for from this appellant vide letter dated 15th january, 2013 (annexure 9), is not a notice at all for the demotion and this aspect of the matter has been mentioned in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition. without appreciating these aspects of the matter, the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present letters patent appeal. this appellant has retired on 30th june, 2013.3) argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant ● it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the promotion was given to this appellant (original petitioner) on the post of clerk on 14th september, 1994. this appellant was serving as a peon from 01.06.1976. after getting promotion, never any objection was raised by anyone, much less the respondents-government and the work of the appellant (original petitioner) was found upto the mark of satisfaction and there is no allegation of any misconduct committed by this appellant, nor there is any allegation upon this appellant that any fraud has been played by this appellant. the promotion given to this appellant on 14th september, 1994 has been withdrawn on 18th february, 2013, i.e. after approximately two long decades, without giving any notice of 3 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 demotion. ● counsel for the appellant further submitted that “limited examination” for the promotion has never been conducted by the respondents-state. ● it is further stated by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that from this appellant (original petitioner), some documents were sought for. this communication is 15th january, 2013 (annexure 9). looking to the said communication, it is about certain documents to be presented by this appellant, but, the said communication cannot be labelled as 'show cause notice of demotion' from class-iii post to class-iv post. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. these grounds have already been taken in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition. after rendering approximately two decades of service on a promotional post of clerk, this appellant cannot be demoted on the post of a peon and that too, without giving any show cause notice for the demotion and, hence, the order passed by the learned single judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.4) argument canvassed by the respondents-state ● it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-state that no error has been committed by the learned single judge in appreciating the fact that the required examination to be given by the petitioner for the promotion on post of clerk was never given by this appellant and, hence, his promotion was in violation of the government resolution no.2215 dated 11th february, 1985. this aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned single judge that if the promotion given to this appellant is illegal, he can always be demoted by the government. never any examination has been cleared by this appellant as required as per clause 2.1 of the aforesaid circular. vehemently counsel for the respondents has read out clause 2.1, which is in hindi language which is reproduced in internal page of the impugned order passed by the learned single judge and it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that until and unless the peon i.e. a class-iv employee, is clearing the examination, which is popularly known as “limited examination”, such a class-iv employee 4 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 cannot be promoted as class-iii employee and, hence, the promotion given on 14th september, 1994 (annexure6) was illegal and the promotion given to this appellant was withdrawn vide order dated 18th february, 2013 (annexure11) and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned single judge may not be interfered with. ● counsel for the respondents-state submitted that no employee can claim promotion as a matter of right and as the very promotional granted in the year 1994 was illegal, it was recalled in the year 2013. ● counsel for the respondents further submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to this appellant. this fact has already been highlighted in the impugned order passed by the respondents-state dated 18th february, 2013 (annexure11) and thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. this aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned single judge and, hence, this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this court.5) reasons:- having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned single judge in w.p.(s) no.2136 of 2013 dated 8th april, 2015 for the following facts and reasons:- (i) this appellant is the original petitioner who had preferred the writ petition being w.p.(s) no.2136 of 2013 which was dismissed by the learned single judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present letters patent appeal. (ii) original petitioner was appointed on class-iv post of a peon on 01.06.1976. (iii) the appellant (original petitioner) worked honestly, diligently and sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents. he was posted as clerk on adhoc basis for six months on 16th august, 1990. (iv) again this appellant (original petitioner) was posted on the post of clerk on 13th march, 1993 till the regular appointed on class-iii post is appointed, meaning thereby, the work given by this appellant (original petitioner) was absolutely upto the mark of satisfaction and he was working honestly, sincerely and diligently. 5 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 never any show cause notice was given to this appellant for any misconduct. (v) thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) was confirmed on the post of clerk on 14th september, 1994 and he was promoted on the said post vide order at annexure 6 to the memo of letters patent appeal. promotion was given by the district education officer, ranchi. thus, the said order was passed by the governmental authority. (vi) thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) again worked for approximately two decades and during this period also, never any show cause notice has been given to this appellant for his misconduct. thus, even on the post of clerk, the appellant has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. this appellant was to retire with effect from 30th june, 2013 and as it happens in the governmental jobs, at fag end, the promotion given in the year 1994 has been withdrawn in february, 2013 vide order at annexure 11 to the memo of letters patent appeal and that too, without giving any show cause notice of demotion. there was a communication between the respondents-government and this appellant, which is dated 15th january, 2013 which is at annexure 9 to the memo of letters patent appeal. looking to the said communication, it cannot be said that it is a show cause notice given by the respondents-state to this appellant for demotion from class-iii post of clerk to class- iv post of peon. thus, without giving any notice, the promotion given to this appellant in the year 1994 has been withdrawn in february, 2013. this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned single judge in w.p.(s) no.2136 of 2013 dated 8th april, 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) much has been argued by the counsel for the respondents- state that the communication dated 15th january, 2013 is a show cause notice of demotion. we are not in agreement with this contention mainly for the following reasons: - (a) every communication between this appellant and the state is not a show cause notice of demotion. 6 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 (b) looking to the communication dated 15th january, 2013 (annexure 9), at the highest, state was seeking certain documents, from this appellant and they were supplied by this appellant immediately. (c) looking to the impugned order dated 18th february, 2013 (annexure 11), it appears that the main reason for demotion is that no examination has been cleared by this appellant which is required to be cleared as per erstwhile state of bihar's circular dated 11th february, 1985. on this very ground, the order of demotion has been passed on 18th february, 2013 and the promotion given in the year 1994 has been withdrawn after approximately two long decades. thus, the impugned order is travelling beyond the so-called communication dated 15th january, 2013. this type of ground of non-clearance of statutory examination, which is agitated in the impugned order dated 18th february, 2013, has never been mentioned in the communication dated 15th january, 2013 (annexure9) and, therefore, such a communication is never a notice of demotion at all. (d) had the communication dated 15th january, 201 is taken to be treated as show cause notice of demotion, all the grounds which are running in the mind of the government, should have been disclosed to the employee, so that an employee can give reply. the most important ground which is vehemently conveyed by the counsel for the state, is not being reflected in the so-called communication dated 15th january, 2013 and hence also, the said communication is not a show cause notice at all. (e) assuming without admitting the order dated 15th january, 2013 is a show cause notice, then also, the main ground on which order of demotion has been passed i.e. non-clearance of so-called examination, has not been mentioned in the communication dated 15th january, 2013 and, hence, there is no effective hearing to this appellant. (f) it further appears from the facts that limited examination ought to have been conducted by the state 7 l.p.a. no.278 of 2015 regularly which has not been conducted as stated in paragraph 32 of the memo of writ petition preferred by this appellant.6) as a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the the judgment and order delivered by learned single judge in w.p.(s) no.2136 of 2013 dated 8th april, 2015. the impugned order of demotion dated 18th february, 2013 (annexure11) is also quashed and the consequential benefits will be given to this appellant.7) this letters patent appeal is allowed and disposed of. (d. n. patel, j) manoj/ (ratnaker bhengra , j)
Judgment:

1 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 278 of 2015 Raghunandan Koerie, son of late Giridhari Koerie, resident of Banta Hazam, PO- Banta Hazam, PS- Silli, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director, Secondary Education of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. District Education Officer, Dhurwa, Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, P.O. & P.S. - Kankar Bagh, District – Patna 6. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna … … … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- For the Petitioner: M/s. Shashank Shekahr, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. ------ 08/Dated:

10. h January, 2017 Oral Judgment. Per D.N. Patel, J1 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2136 of 2013 dated 8th April, 2015, whereby the petition preferred by the present appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The promotion granted from the post of Peon to Clerk in 1994 has been withdrawn in 2013 by the Government. Appellant retired on 30.06.2013. This action of the Government has not been quashed, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

2) FACTUAL MATRIX ● This appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as Class-IV employee with the respondents-erstwhile State of Bihar on 1st June, 1976. ● On 16th August, 1990 adhoc promotion was given to this 2 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 appellant on the post of clerk (Annexure 2). This adhoc promotion was further continued vide order dated 13th March, 1993 and ultimately an order was passed that till the regular clerk is appointed, the adhoc promotion given to this appellant will be continued. ● Vide order dated 14th September, 1994 (Annexure 6), the appellant was promoted on the post of Clerk. This order was passed by the District Education Officer, Ranchi. ● Thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) continued on the post of Clerk till the order of demotion was passed i.e. 18th February, 2013 (Annexure 11). ● The order of demotion dated 18th February, 2013 (Annexure

11) which was passed after approximately 19 years of promotion was challenged by this appellant in W.P.(S) No. 2136 of 2013 on several grounds including the ground that no notice for demotion was given to this appellant. Few facts sought for from this appellant vide letter dated 15th January, 2013 (Annexure 9), is not a notice at all for the demotion and this aspect of the matter has been mentioned in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition. Without appreciating these aspects of the matter, the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. This appellant has retired on 30th June, 2013.

3) ARGUMENT CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ● It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the promotion was given to this appellant (original petitioner) on the post of clerk on 14th September, 1994. This appellant was serving as a peon from 01.06.1976. After getting promotion, never any objection was raised by anyone, much less the respondents-Government and the work of the appellant (original petitioner) was found upto the mark of satisfaction and there is no allegation of any misconduct committed by this appellant, nor there is any allegation upon this appellant that any fraud has been played by this appellant. The promotion given to this appellant on 14th September, 1994 has been withdrawn on 18th February, 2013, i.e. after approximately two long decades, without giving any notice of 3 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 demotion. ● Counsel for the appellant further submitted that “limited examination” for the promotion has never been conducted by the respondents-State. ● It is further stated by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that from this appellant (original petitioner), some documents were sought for. This communication is 15th January, 2013 (Annexure 9). Looking to the said communication, it is about certain documents to be presented by this appellant, but, the said communication cannot be labelled as 'show cause notice of demotion' from Class-III post to Class-IV post. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. These grounds have already been taken in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition. After rendering approximately two decades of service on a promotional post of clerk, this appellant cannot be demoted on the post of a Peon and that too, without giving any show cause notice for the demotion and, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4) ARGUMENT CANVASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS-STATE ● It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating the fact that the required examination to be given by the petitioner for the promotion on post of clerk was never given by this appellant and, hence, his promotion was in violation of the Government Resolution No.2215 dated 11th February, 1985. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge that if the promotion given to this appellant is illegal, he can always be demoted by the Government. Never any examination has been cleared by this appellant as required as per Clause 2.1 of the aforesaid Circular. Vehemently counsel for the respondents has read out Clause 2.1, which is in Hindi language which is reproduced in internal page of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that until and unless the peon i.e. a Class-IV employee, is clearing the examination, which is popularly known as “limited examination”, such a Class-IV employee 4 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 cannot be promoted as Class-III employee and, hence, the promotion given on 14th September, 1994 (Annexure

6) was illegal and the promotion given to this appellant was withdrawn vide order dated 18th February, 2013 (Annexure

11) and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. ● Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that no employee can claim promotion as a matter of right and as the very promotional granted in the year 1994 was illegal, it was recalled in the year 2013. ● Counsel for the respondents further submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to this appellant. This fact has already been highlighted in the impugned order passed by the respondents-State dated 18th February, 2013 (Annexure

11) and thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

5) REASONS:- Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2136 of 2013 dated 8th April, 2015 for the following facts and reasons:- (i) This appellant is the original petitioner who had preferred the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2136 of 2013 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. (ii) Original petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post of a Peon on 01.06.1976. (iii) The appellant (original petitioner) worked honestly, diligently and sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents. He was posted as Clerk on adhoc basis for six months on 16th August, 1990. (iv) Again this appellant (original petitioner) was posted on the post of Clerk on 13th March, 1993 till the regular appointed on Class-III post is appointed, meaning thereby, the work given by this appellant (original petitioner) was absolutely upto the mark of satisfaction and he was working honestly, sincerely and diligently. 5 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 Never any show cause notice was given to this appellant for any misconduct. (v) Thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) was confirmed on the post of Clerk on 14th September, 1994 and he was promoted on the said post vide order at Annexure 6 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal. Promotion was given by the District Education Officer, Ranchi. Thus, the said order was passed by the Governmental authority. (vi) Thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) again worked for approximately two decades and during this period also, never any show cause notice has been given to this appellant for his misconduct. Thus, even on the post of Clerk, the appellant has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. This appellant was to retire with effect from 30th June, 2013 and as it happens in the governmental jobs, at fag end, the promotion given in the year 1994 has been withdrawn in February, 2013 vide order at Annexure 11 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal and that too, without giving any show cause notice of demotion. There was a communication between the respondents-Government and this appellant, which is dated 15th January, 2013 which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal. Looking to the said communication, it cannot be said that it is a show cause notice given by the respondents-State to this appellant for demotion from Class-III post of Clerk to Class- IV post of peon. Thus, without giving any notice, the promotion given to this appellant in the year 1994 has been withdrawn in February, 2013. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2136 of 2013 dated 8th April, 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) Much has been argued by the counsel for the respondents- State that the communication dated 15th January, 2013 is a show cause notice of demotion. We are not in agreement with this contention mainly for the following reasons: - (a) Every communication between this appellant and the State is not a show cause notice of demotion. 6 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 (b) Looking to the communication dated 15th January, 2013 (Annexure 9), at the highest, State was seeking certain documents, from this appellant and they were supplied by this appellant immediately. (c) Looking to the impugned order dated 18th February, 2013 (Annexure 11), it appears that the main reason for demotion is that no examination has been cleared by this appellant which is required to be cleared as per erstwhile State of Bihar's circular dated 11th February, 1985. On this very ground, the order of demotion has been passed on 18th February, 2013 and the promotion given in the year 1994 has been withdrawn after approximately two long decades. Thus, the impugned order is travelling beyond the so-called communication dated 15th January, 2013. This type of ground of non-clearance of statutory examination, which is agitated in the impugned order dated 18th February, 2013, has never been mentioned in the communication dated 15th January, 2013 (Annexure

9) and, therefore, such a communication is never a notice of demotion at all. (d) Had the communication dated 15th January, 201 is taken to be treated as show cause notice of demotion, all the grounds which are running in the mind of the Government, should have been disclosed to the employee, so that an employee can give reply. The most important ground which is vehemently conveyed by the counsel for the State, is not being reflected in the so-called communication dated 15th January, 2013 and hence also, the said communication is not a show cause notice at all. (e) Assuming without admitting the order dated 15th January, 2013 is a show cause notice, then also, the main ground on which order of demotion has been passed i.e. non-clearance of so-called examination, has not been mentioned in the communication dated 15th January, 2013 and, hence, there is no effective hearing to this appellant. (f) It further appears from the facts that limited examination ought to have been conducted by the State 7 L.P.A. No.278 of 2015 regularly which has not been conducted as stated in paragraph 32 of the memo of writ petition preferred by this appellant.

6) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2136 of 2013 dated 8th April, 2015. The impugned order of demotion dated 18th February, 2013 (Annexure

11) is also quashed and the consequential benefits will be given to this appellant.

7) This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. (D. N. Patel, J) Manoj/ (Ratnaker Bhengra , J)