IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2250 of 2015 Mrs. Onima Minz ..... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of HRD, Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of HRD, Ranchi.
3. The Registrar Ranchi University, Ranchi.
4. The Principal S.S. Memorial College, Kanke Road, Ranchi …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : : Mr. Amit Kumar, J.C. to G.P.II ----- 7/20.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Ranchi University as also learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is working on Class-III post in S.S. Memorial College, Ranchi, under the Ranchi University, is aggrieved by the fact that the fixation of salary of the petitioner by the respondent Ranchi University, has not yet been approved by the State Government.
3. Petitioner was appointed on Class-III post on compassionate ground and was posted in S.S. Memorial Collage, Ranchi, by the order of the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University, vide office order issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, under Memo No. B /1526 -38/93 dated 17.12.1993, which has been brought on record as Annexure–1 to the writ application. The post was also sanctioned by the then State of Bihar and ultimately, another office order was issued by the Ranchi University as contained in Memo No. B-3203-3244/94 dated 22nd February 1994, which has been brought on record as Annexure–3 to the writ application. This order shows that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, the services of the employees of the Ranchi University were regularised w.e.f. the date of sanction passed by the State Government. The name of the petitioner also finds place at serial No.15 in her collage, i.e., S.S. Memorial College, Ranchi, showing the date of joining of the petitioner as 17.12.1993.
4. Subsequently, by office order issued by the Ranchi University under Memo No. RU/R /75-91/08 dated 18.12.2008 as contained in Annexure–4 to the writ application, the salary of the employees of the Ranchi University were fixed pursuant the implementation of the 5 th Pay Revision Committee, in the year 1996. In the said office order also, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.7, showing the date of joining of the petitioner as 21.12.1993 against the post sanctioned on 20.8.1993. The salary of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale of 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the same was sent for approval to the State Government.
5. The State Government, in its Directorate of Higher Education issued the letter dated 4.6.2010, as contained in Annexure–5 to the writ application, whereby the Registrar of the Ranchi University was informed about the approval of the -2- revised pay scales of the employees of the Ranchi University, including S.S. Memorial Collage, Ranchi. However, the name of the petitioner was left out in the list sent by the State Government and it was shown that the recommendations against two posts were withheld.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner gave representation to the Registrar, Ranchi University on 29.6.2010 as contained in Annexure–6 to the writ application, raising her grievance against the non-approval of fixation of her salary by the State Government. The letter was also issued by the Principal of S.S. Memorial College, Ranchi, to the Ranchi University giving the list of some persons, whose fixation of salary were not approved by the State Government and in the said letter also, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.3. In the said letter, the fixation of the salary of the petitioner made by the Ranchi University w.e.f. 1.1.1996 was also attached. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the matter of approval of the salary of the petitioner in the revised pay scale, is kept pending by the State Government since 4.6.2010 itself, and no step has yet been taken by the State Government in spite of the repeated representations.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was against the sanctioned post and her services were also adjusted pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court by order issued by the Ranchi University as contained in Annexure–3 to the writ application. Subsequently, even the pay of the petitioner was fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th PRC, which was made applicable to the employees of the Ranchi University w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The same was also sent to the State Government for approval, but for the reasons best known to the respondent State, the approval has not been yet been accorded to the fixation of the salary of the petitioner, which is without any reason and absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
8. Learned counsel for the Ranchi University has also submitted that the case of the petitioner has already been recommended by the Ranchi University and the final decision has to be taken by the State Government.
9. By order dated 12.7.2016, learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions and to file counter affidavit in the matter and the case was fixed for 23rd August 2016. On 23rd August 2016, learned counsel for the State again prayed for time for filing counter affidavit in the matter, which was again granted to him for filing the counter affidavit by way of last chance. It was also made clear that if no counter affidavit is filed by respondent State by that time, the matter may be decided on its own merits and the case was fixed for today. Today also, learned counsel for the State submits that he has no instructions in the matter in spite of several letters written by him. Learned counsel for the respondent State, thus, is not in a position to defend the action of the State Government, or to give any reason as to why there is no approval to the fixation of salary of the petitioner in 5th PRC pay scale as recommended by the Ranchi University. -3- 10. In absence of any response from the respondent State, despite giving more than adequate opportunity for the same, it has to be deemed that there is no valid reason for non-approval of the fixation of salary of the petitioner. Even in the letter dated 4.6.2010, whereby the approval in case of the two posts were withheld by the State Government, there is no reason absolutely as to why their matters were withheld by the State Government. Thus, this Court is left with no option, but to direct the respondent State, particularly the Principal Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, in its Department of HRD, to forthwith accord the approval to the fixation of salary of the petitioner, as fixed by the respondent Ranchi University.
11. The respondent Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand in the Department of HRD, Ranchi, is hereby, directed to pass appropriate order according the approval to the fixation of salary of the petitioner in the 5 th PRC pay scale, as fixed by the respondent Ranchi University vide office order dated 18.12.2008, as contained in Annexure–4 to the writ application, positively within the period of two months from the date of receipt / communication of this order.
12. This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3436 of 2015 1. Ratan Deo Bhagat 2. Mustaque Anwar 3. Azaz Ahmad 4. Jagmohan Mahali ..... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The District Education Officer, Lohardaga …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : : J.C. to AAG ----- 7/20.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent State.
2. Petitioners, who are working as Para Teachers in the subject of Urdu, have filed this writ application praying for the regularisation of their services as Assistant Teachers. The petitioners have also challenged the advertisement No.2 / 2015-16 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, whereby the posts have been advertised, in which 50% have been reserved for Para Teachers. Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that certain number of posts have been reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category also, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, should not be there, taking into consideration the language, for which the appointment is sought to be made.
3. I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel. The persons, belonging to Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, if they have the required qualification in Urdu Language, they may be considered for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Urdu and there cannot be any prohibition for the same. Since the posts have been advertised, in which 50% posts have been reserved for Para Teachers also, the petitioners may apply against these posts and take their chance for their selection in accordance with law.
4. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar