Disposed

Kalidas Hembrom v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC1 Jun 2020WPC/2600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, without considering the merits of a quo warranto petition challenging an appointment and promotion due to lack of qualifications and violation of promotion rules, directed the respondent authority to treat the writ application as a representation and decide within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 2 to treat the writ application as a representation and decide within four months after giving proper opportunity to parties.

Kalidas Hembrom Vs Human Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2600 of 2014

¶3

Kalidas Hembrom ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶6

2.Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, having office at Primary Education Directorate, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. & District-Jamtara. 4.Mrs. Sharmila Sarkar. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, Sr. S.C.-II ---------

¶7

03/Dated: 1^st June, 2020

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶9

The instant writ application has been preferred by the

¶10

petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶11

(i) to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the respondents as to under what authority or right the respondent no. 4 holds the office and post of Headmistress of Santal Middle School, Kairabani, P.O. Kairabani, P.S. Fatehpur, District-Jamtara; (ii) To hold and declare that respondent no.4 (Mrs. Sharmila Sarkar) has any power and authority to hold a public office of the post of Headmistress in Santal Middle School, Kairbani, inasmuch, as she does not have the requisite qualification of appointment of such post in view of the fact that she does not have the qualification of postgraduation.

¶12

(iii)To further hold and declare the appointment and promotion of respondent no. 4 is in teeth of Rule 5(4) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Nationalized Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rule, 1993, as respondent no. 4 was appointed on 4^th October, 1993 as Assistant Teacher (Grade-I) and she was promoted directly to the post of

¶13

-2-

¶14

Headmistress (Grade-VII) on 1^st of November, 2002 without completing the Kalawadhi (time period) as enshrined in the said 1993 Rules.

¶15

(iv)To direct the officials respondents 1 to 3 to recover the salary from respondent no.4 for the period she is found unauthorizedly working either on substantive post or promotional post and to take action against all erring officers, who were responsible for appointing/promoting respondent no.4 and allowed her to continue on such post.

¶16

Mr. Manoj Tondon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Grade-I) on 4^th October, 1993 as was informed to the petitioner by way of information given to him under Right to Information Act and she was promoted to the post of Headmistress of Santal Middle School, Kairabani on 1^st November, 2002. Learned counsel further referred various circulars and submits that the appointment and the promotion of respondent no. 4 is in teeth of Rule 5 (4) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Nationalized Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rules, 1993, because the respondent no. 4 was promoted directly to the post of Headmistress on 01.11.2002 without completing the Kalawadhi (time period) as enshrined in the said Rule.

¶17

No counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, Sr. S.C.-II appearing for the state submits that the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation and the same will be treated in accordance with law.

¶18

Since the matter is of 2014 as such without going into the merits of this case, I dispose of the writ application by directing respondent no. 2 to treat this writ application as representation

¶19

-3-

¶20

and take a decision within a period of four months in accordance with law, rules and regulations from the date of receipt of copy of the order and after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and respondent no. 4.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions the instant writ application is disposed of.

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶23

Amardeep/

Kalidas Hembrom v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidas Hembrom v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lailun Kumari and Ors. Vs Health

Shio Pujan Vs the Kolhan University through Its Registrar and Ors.

Braj Nandan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs Chief Secretory

Vinod Prasad Singh Vs Minor Irrigation Department

Shiv Dayal Sah Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chief Managing Director and Ors.