Md Jawaid Eqbal Vs. Human Resources Department - Court Judgment

1 IN   THE   HIGH   COURT   OF   JHARKHAND   AT   RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6388 of 2016  Md. Jawaid Eqbal … …  Petitioner VERSUS1 State of Jharkhand  2. Director,   Primary   Education,   Department   of   Human   Resources  Development,   Government   of   Jharkhand,   HEC   Colony,   P.O.   &   P.S.­  Dhurwa, District­ Ranchi.   3. Regional   Deputy   Director   of   Education,   Chaibasa,   P.O.   &   P.S.­  Chaibasa, District­ Singhbhum (West).  4. District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.­ Chaibasa,  District­ Singhbhum (West).

5. Area   Education   Officer,   Chaibasa,   P.O.   &   P.S.­   Chaibasa,   District­  Singhbhum (West).

6. Block   Education   Officer,   Chaibasa,   P.O.   &   P.S.­   Chaibasa,   District­  Singhbhum (West).

7. Managing Committee of the Urdu Middle School, Chaibasa, P.O. &  P.S.­ Chaibasa, District­ Singhbhum (West). … ... Respondents      CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK      For Petitioner        :Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate   :Ruby Pandey, Advocate  :Seena Mukherjee, Advocate      For Respondents  :Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate  05/  07.09.2017     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. In   the   instant   writ   application,   petitioner   has   prayed   for  quashing of the Order dated 30.08.2016, passed by respondent no. 2  and further not to give effect to the said order and further to approve  proposition   statement   in   respect   of   payment   of   salary   to   the  petitioner   and   to   pay   salary   including   the   arrears.     Petitioner   has  further prayed for a direction not to discriminate the petitioner and  to pay him salary at par with the similarly situated teachers working  in the Minority School.  2. The facts in short is that petitioner was initially appointed to  the   post   of   Assistant   Teacher   on   19.06.2011   by   the   Managing  Committee of Urdu Town Middle School, Main Road, Chakradharpur  which   is   a   Non­Government   Aided   Minority   School   against   the  Advertisement   dated   03.05.2011   and   since   then   he   is   holding   the  post   without   any  interruption. The  background of the  case  is that  2 vide letter dated 29.07.2010, a request was made by the Managing  Committee before the District Superintendent of Education wherein it  was informed that four sanctioned posts for Matric Trained Teachers  are vacant and, therefore, the permission may be accorded to fill up  the   same.   District   Superintendent   of   Education   accorded   the  permission   vide   its   letter   dated   08.04.2011   and   directed   the  Managing Committee to take appropriate steps to fill up the posts  after   following   the   conditions   mentioned   in   letter   no.   709,   dated  04.03.1993. After obtaining permission of District Superintendent of  Education,   the   Managing   Committee   of   the   School   published   an  advertisement   dated   02.05.2011   for   appointment   of   four   Assistant  Teachers for the School in question. Petitioner being eligible in all  aspects   and   qualified   being   M.Sc.,   B.Ed.,   applied   and   appeared   in  selection   process   and   was   duly   appointed   along   with   others   and  accordingly joined the post on 22.06.2011 and the said appointment  was   duly   approved   by   the   District   Superintendent   of   Education,  Singhbhum (West), Chaibasa. Pursuant to the queries raised by the  Director,   Primary   Education,   Human   Resources   Development  Department, the Secretary of the Managing Committee sent a letter  dated   03.12.2012   clarifying   that   the   Teachers   Appointment   Rules  contained   in   Notification   No.   1632,   has   been   issued   only   on  05.02.2012 and the said Rule is applicable prospectively and since  petitioner has been appointed on 19.06.2011, i.e. prior to the Rule  being into force, the requirements with regard to passing of TET in  light of Notification dated 05.09.2012, can only be made effective on  and from 05.09.2012 and it has no retrospective effect.  It is further  averred that for the first time requisite qualification of passing TET  has been prescribed by the National Council of Teachers' Education  vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 and the method and guidelines  for conducting the TET Examination was duly prescribed vide letter  dated   11.02.2011   and   prior   to   that,   there   was   no   requirement   of  passing TET Examination. The minimum qualification of passing TET  has   been   implemented   by   the   State   of   Jharkhand   by   formulating  Rules notified vide Notification No. 1632, Dated 05.09.2012 wherein  3 for the first time guidelines have been issued for holding examination  of Teachers' Eligibility Test and further required conditions have been  incorporated.  3. It is case of the petitioner that he was appointed to the post of  Assistant Teacher against the vacant sanctioned post after completing  the selection procedure and therefore respondents cannot deny him  to pay the salary. However, when petitioner was denied his genuine  claim,   he   along   with   similarly   situated   others   moved   before   this  Court in W.P.(S) No. 6549 of 2013 and other analogous cases, which  were disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2014 directing the Director,  Primary   Education   (Respondent   No.  

2)   to   take   an   appropriate  decision   regarding   recognization   of   the   service   of   the   individual  petitioners   and   also   approval   of   their   proposition   statements   in  accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of  filing   of   representation.   The   said   petitioners   filed   representation  before the respondent no. 2 along with supporting documents and  copy   of   the   order   dated   14.10.2014   passed   by   this   Court   with   a  prayer   to   approve   proposition   statement   and   to   make   payment   of  salary   to   the   petitioner   and   others.   However,   instead   of   deciding  representation of the petitioner in light of order dated 14.10.2014 of  this Court,  the  respondents decided to refer the matter before  the  Screening Committee for further action. Being aggrieved, petitioner  moved this Court in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 2631 of 2016 which  was however dismissed in view of order dated 30.08.2016, passed by  the respondent no. 2  wherein claim of the petitioner for approval of  payment   has   been   rejected   pursuant   to   recommendation   of   the  Screening Committee dated 27.07.2016.  4. Mrs.   M.M.Pal,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the  petitioner   submitted   that   the   rejection   order   dated   31.08.2016   is  illegal,   improper,   arbitrary,   malafide,   discriminatory   as   well   as  has  been passed on extraneous circumstances and without application of  mind   and   as   such   fit   to   be   set   aside.   Learned   Sr.   Counsel   further  submitted   that   a   favourable   order   dated   13.02.2015   had   already  been passed by the then Director in compliance to the order dated  4 14.10.2014   which   could   not   have   been   revoked/   canceled   or  reviewed   by   the   successor­in­office.   Learned   Sr.   Counsel   further  submitted   that   no   notice/   show   cause   was   ever   served   to   the  petitioner   before   changing   or   altering   the   order   dated   13.02.2015  before   passing   impugned   order   dated   31.08.2016.   Learned   Sr.  Counsel   further   submitted   that   since   the   date   of   his   initial  appointment   i.e.   19.06.2011,   petitioner   is   holding   the   post   of  Assistant Teacher in the minority school and is discharging his duties  regularly but till date no payment has been made and the respondent  no.   2,   being  successor­in­office, instead of implementing the order  dated   13.02.2015,   has     passed   impugned   order   dated   30.08.2016  which is not at all sustainable as successor­in­office cannot revoke/  cancel   or   review   the   order   of   his/her   predecessor­in­office.   The  earlier   order   dated   13.02.2015   had   been   passed   in   compliance   of  order and direction of this Court dated 14.10.2014 and as such, the  action of the respondent no. 2, who is successor­in­office, is malafide,  illegal and fit to be quashed. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted  that even if the reservation policy had not been duly followed, the  petitioner   cannot   be   harassed   for   the   wrongs   committed   by   the  respondents. Learned Sr. Counsel further strenuously urges that the  impugned order dated 30.08.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of  law in view of the fact that case of the petitioner has been rejected on  the ground of not following reservation policy in appointment, which  is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. To buttress her arguments,  learned   counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Apex  Court   in   the   case   of    Sindhi   Education   Society   and  another  Vs.  Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported  in (2010) 8 SCC 49.

5. On the other hand counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit  Kumar, learned JC to G.P.II on behalf of respondents – State. Learned  counsel   submitted   that   matter   was   referred   before   the   Screening  Committee on the basis of opinion of the internal financial advisor  and   on   recommendation   of   the   said   Screening   Committee,   it   was  found   that   petitioner's   appointment   was   made   without   following  5 reservation   policy   and   in   furtherance   of   such   decision,   impugned  order   has   been   passed   by   the   respondent   no.   2   which   is   fully  sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that  the writ petition has got no merits and is fit to be rejected.  6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the  parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner  needs   consideration   and   the   impugned   order   dated   30.08.2016,  passed by respondent no. 2 is fit to be quashed and set aside on the  following grounds:   “The   earlier   order   dated   13.02.2015  granting benefits to the petitioner has been reviewed by  the same authority vide its order dated 30.08.2006 is not  permissible in the eye of law. It has been held in the case  of  R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State for India in  Council reported in 1937 0 AIR (PC) 27 that in a case in   which after government officials, duly competent and duly   authorised   in   that   behalf,   have   arrived   honestly   at   one   decision, their successor­in­office, after the decision has been   acted upon and is in effective operation, cannot purport to   enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at   another and totally different decision.” The same view has been reiterated in the case of State of M.P.  Vs. Mansinghra reported in AIR 1958 MP 413.  7. It is highly improbable for successor­in­office to review order  of predecessor­in­office and to pass a totally different order. Under  the   rules   of   executive   business,   there   is   no   such   power   conferred  upon   the   authority   of   the   same   designation   to   recall/   review   the  order   of   his/her   predecessor­in­office   on   the   same   post.   However,  remedy   lies   in   challenging   the   order   either   before   the   higher  authority or before Court of law. Taking action suo motu which is  punitive involving civil consequences without applying principles of  natural justice, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India  and as such, is fit to be quashed and set aside.   8. Case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that  policy  of  reservation/ roster has not  been followed at  the  time  of  appointment.   The   Hon'ble   Apex   Court,   in   the   case   of  Sindhi  Education Society and another Vs. Chief Secretary, Government  6 of NCT of Delhi and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49, has held  that   State   imposed   reservation   for   SC/   ST   Teachers   in   Minority  School (aided  or unaided) is impermissible. Minority schools have  right to appoint persons compatible with their institution or culture  so that right to conserve their socio economic cultural character is  not   violated.   Merely   receiving   grant­in­aid  perse  would   not   made  such school or institution “State” within the meaning of Article 12. No appointment can be declared to be irregular or invalid only on  the ground that appointing authority did not adhere to the procedure  and obtained roster clearance, the petitioner cannot be penalised.  The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sanjit Kumar Vs. State  of Bihar reported in Bihar Law Journals 807, para­7 has held  “in   such   situation   if   the   appointing   authority   did   not   adhere   to   the   procedure   and   obtain   roster   clearance,   it   would not be proper to penalise him. Besides foundational   facts have not been stated by the respondents to suggest   that   the   appointment   of   the   petitioner   was   in   excess   of   quota. In this view of the matter even if it is assumed that   the roster clearance was not taken, in my opinion may not   be   sufficient   justification   to   terminate   services   of   the   petitioner.”  9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and  judicial   pronouncements,   the   impugned   order   dated   30.08.2016,  passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside and the writ  petition   is   allowed.   The   respondents   are   directed   to   release   all  consequential   benefits   to   the   petitioner   within   a   period   of   eight  weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.  Needless to say that the respondents shall release entire benefits in  favour of petitioner to which he is entitled i.e. arrears of salary along  with current salary and other benefits as a result of quashment of  impugned order.  (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Pallavi/­