Disposed

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2023WPC/6065/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of writ petitions challenging the de-recognition of Deepak Roshan degrees and seeking mandamus for promotion/inclusion in gradation lists, dismissing the writ and directing petitioners to approach competent authorities through proper channels.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach competent authority via proper channel with representation; writ petition disposed.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (S) No. 6065 of 2019

¶3

Manoj Kumar

¶4

Bhagwat Tudu

¶5

Hari Kumar Dev

¶6

Matuk Dhari Das

¶7

Jay Prakash Nayak

¶8

Nand Kishor Nayak

¶9

Ajay Kumar Jaiswal

¶10

Shiv Pujan

¶11

Bhuneshwar Mahto

¶12

10.Ishwar Lal Mahto

¶13

11.Niranjan Kumar

¶14

12.Rama Shankar

¶15

13.Phirtu Ram

¶16

14.Dhirendra Nath Das

¶17

15.Dipak Kumar Bauri

¶18

16.Gokhool Rajwar

¶19

17.Baldeo Nayak

¶20

18.Lakhan Lal Munda

¶21

19.Syed Parwez Ahmed

¶22

20.Kumari Meena

¶23

21.Subhash Rajwar

¶24

22.Laxmi Narayan Sudhanshu

¶25

23.Vishwa Nath Manjhi

¶26

24.Reena Devi, W/o Late Manoj Kumar 25.Rudra Nath Murmu ----Petitioners Versus

¶27

The State of Jharkhand

¶28

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶29

The Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶30

The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶31

The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶32

The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

¶33

The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro ----Respondents

¶34

¶35

CORAM: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶36

--For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-II, Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, A.C to S.C (L&C)-II

¶37

¶38

07 / 23.01.2023 I.A. No. 8423/2022 seeks deletion of the name of the petitioner no. 24 as he has passed away during pendency of the writ application on 09.08.2022 and his substitution by his legal heir / widow Reena Devi named at para-4 of the instant I.A.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the Respondent State does not have any objection. Accordingly, let petitioner no. 24 be substituted by his legal heir / widow namely, Reena Devi in the array of parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary substitution in course of the day. The order sheet shall also reflect the substituted name of the petitioner no. 24. I.A. stands disposed of.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

Writ petition was preferred with the following prayers.

¶43

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Letter dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-8) issued under the pen & signature of the Respondent No. 2 whereby & where under Departmental Letter No. 6063 dated 03.11.2003 has been withdrawn and it has been decided that the degree granted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar is not recognized for any purpose including promotion / appointment in Govt. Services:

¶44

ii. Further for issuance of an appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Letter dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure-8/A) issued under the pen & signature of the Respondent No. 3 whereby & where under Letter dated 26.02.2015 will have retrospective effect i.e. the degree granted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar even before issuance of this letter is not recognized for any purpose:

¶45

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s), in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon and directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the Gradation List prepared by the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro in accordance with Govt. Resolution bearing Memo No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015, which has been issued in compliance of judgment passed in case of W.P (S) No. 638/2006 (Arun Sinha and others – Vs – The State of Jharkhand & ors.) which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 and also by Apex Court in Spl. Leave to Appeal No. 5520 – 5522/ 2013:

¶46

iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s), in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion in higher grade i.e. Grade-3 & Grade- 4. Grade – 1 scale has been given from date of their joining, as per the judgment rendered in case of Sunil Kumar Bhagat – Vs – The State and analogous case i.e. W.P (S) No. 2547/2014:

¶47

The main grievance of the petitioners relating to de-recognition of the qualification of Sahitya Alankar obtained by the petitioners from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar has been settled by virtue of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (C) No. 3115/2015 [ Vijoy Kumar Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ] and analogous cases (Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit). Petitioners were appointed on the post of

¶48

¶49

Assistant Teacher in Elementary Schools in the State of Jharkhand in the respective years on the basis of such qualification. Details of the petitioners are furnished in the form of a chart at Paragraph-6 of the writ petition which is extracted hereunder:

¶50

Sl.	Name of the	Date of	Date of	Degree of	P.G.
No.	petitioners & qualification at the time of appointment	Appointment	Joining	Deoghar Vidyapith equivalent to B.A.	Degree
1.	ManojKumar,I. Sc.	07.11.1999	21.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
2.	Bhagwat Tudu,I.Sc	28.06.1999	22.07.1999	Sahitya Alankar	---
3.	Hari Kumar Dev, Matric	06.10.1994	19.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
4.	Matuk Dhari Das, I. Sc	07.11.1994	12.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
5.	Jay Prakash Nayak, Matric	06.10.1994	19.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
6.	Nand Kishor Nayak, Matric	06.10.1994	19.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A
7.	Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, I. Sc	06.10.1994	18.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
8.	Shiv Pujan, I. Com	07.11.19…	24.11.19…	Sahitya Alankar	M.A
9.	Bhuneshwar Mahto, I. Sc	06.10.1994	18.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A
10.	Ishwar Lal Mahto, Matric	07.11.1994	14.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A
11.	Niranjan Kumar, Matric	06.10.1994	18.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
12.	Rama Shankar, Matric	07.11.1994	12.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
13.	Phirtu Ram,I. Sc.	07.11.1994	14.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A
14.	Dhirendra Nath Das, Matric	09.02.1987	10.02.1987	Sahitya Alankar	---`
15.	Dipak Kumar Bauri, Matric	07.11.1994	15.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
16.	Gokhool Rajwar, Matric	09.02.1987	10.02.1987	Sahitya Alankar	---
17.	Baldeo Nayak,I. Sc.	06.10.1994	21.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
18.	Lakhan Lal Munda, Matric	19.11.1994	25.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
19.	Syed Parwez Ahmed,I. Sc.	07.11.1994	19.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
20.	Kumari Meena,Inter	11.12.1988	12.12.1988	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
21.	Subhash Rajwar, I.A.	09.02.1987	10.02.1987	Sahitya Alankar	---
22.	Laxmi Narayan Sudhanshu,I. Sc.	……	21.09.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
23.	Vishwa Nath Manjhi,I. Sc.	06.10.1994	26.10.1994	Sahitya Alankar	M.A.
24.	ManojKumar,I. Sc.	07.11.1994	11.11.1994	Sahitya Alankar	---
25.	Rudra Nath Murmu, I.A.	08.07.1999	27.07.1999	Sahitya Alankar	---

¶51

¶52

5. Learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has inter-alia held as follows:

¶53

“ 22 . In view thereof, this Court held that the degree of ‘Praveshika’ ‘Sahitya Bhushan’ and ‘Sahitya Alankar has got equivalence to Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation, as decided vide order dated 11.01.1991 by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 03.11.2003, and as such, the validity of order dated 11.01.1991 will be effective up-to 26.02.2015.

¶54

23 . The degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, are held to be valid up-to 26.02.2015.

¶55

It is clarified that no benefit is to be given on the basis of degrees issued by the institution in question, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, after 26.02.2015.

¶56

24 . In consequence thereof, the petitioners are directed to approach before the respondents-authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order for consequential benefit of promotion etc.

¶57

Upon receipt/production of such order, the respondentsauthorities shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on examining the facts of individual writ petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Needless to say that if one or the other writ petitioners are found eligible, the benefits shall be granted within further period of three months from the date of such decision. However, in case of any adverse decision, the same shall be communicated to the individual petitioner within the aforesaid period.

¶58

25 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.”

¶59

Having regard to the pronouncement made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (C) No. 3115/2015 and analogous cases, validity of degree of Sahitya Alankar declared equivalent to the graduation, as per the order dated 11.01.1991 by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 03.11.2003, has been made effective up to 26.02.2015.

¶60

Further grievance of the petitioners relates to seniority in the gradation list because they have been left out on account of holding the qualification of Sahitya Alankar during the same period in question.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that gradation list has been prepared, but petitioners have been excluded therefrom. They are serving in the district of Bokaro. It is a district-cadre post.

¶62

Learned counsel for the State submits that the main issue relating to recognition of qualification of Sahitya Alankar equivalent to the graduation has been settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (C) No. 3115/2015.

¶63

¶64

Learned counsel for the State however submits that since the petitioners have claimed that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar has been obtained by them prior to 15.02.2015, they should approach the competent authority / Respondent No. 4 through proper channel of the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro (Respondent No. 7) for redressal of their grievances.

¶65

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the position in law settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P (C) No. 3115/2015, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are required to approach the competent authority / Respondent No. 4 through proper channel for redressal of their remaining grievances relating to correction in the gradation list and inclusion of their names at proper place, as per inter-se seniority among teachers in the district. Such representation be made within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Needless to say, the competent authority / Respondent No. 4 should consider their representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably within sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶66

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J)

¶67

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶68

Ranjeet

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak Ali Vs Saba Khatoon

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Territory Manager Sanjeev Gupta Vs Ms B K B Transport Private Ltd.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Territory Manager Sanjeev Gupta Vs Ambey Mining Private Ltd.

Gopal Bouri Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director