- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madan Mohan Singh v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The post of Head Master was vacant from 15 May 1977, and the Petitioner began functioning as Head Master-in-charge from 15 July 1977. After pursuing various writ proceedings, the Petitioner received Government approval and recognition as Head Master through a notification dated 8 May 1992, effective from the date of that notification. [1]
The Petitioner then sought retrospective recognition and promotion. In C.W.J.C. No. 1636 of 1993 (R), the Division Bench directed the competent authority to decide whether he was entitled to retrospective promotion and, if so, from what date. [1][2]
The Respondents subsequently passed an order dated 25 March 1994 granting promotion from 2 October 1980, but did not address the period from 15 July 1977 to 2 October 1980, during which the Petitioner worked as Head Master-in-charge. [3]
In the present proceedings, the State filed no counter affidavit. [4][5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondents properly considered the Petitioner's service as Head Master-in-charge from 15 July 1977 to 2 October 1980 when deciding his entitlement to retrospective promotion. [2][3]
- Whether the matter should be remanded for a reasoned decision concerning that period. [5]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Petitioner claimed that he should receive Head Master status from the date he began functioning as Head Master-in-charge and that this period should be counted for the relevant service benefits. [1]
Respondents' Position
- The opinion records the appearance of State counsel but notes that no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. [4][5]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court treated the Petitioner's work as Head Master-in-charge as service rendered to the State. Because he had continuously performed that service faithfully and without blemish, the Respondents were required to consider it while deciding his promotion. [5]
The Court found that the Respondents had not complied with the earlier Division Bench direction. Their order addressed promotion from 2 October 1980 but failed to determine the Petitioner's claim concerning the period from 1977 to 1980. [3][5]
The absence of any counter affidavit further supported the Court's conclusion that the matter required reconsideration rather than final determination in the present proceeding. The Court therefore remanded the issue to the Respondents for a reasoned order in accordance with law. [4][5]
Holding and Implications
THE WRIT APPLICATION WAS DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS FOR REMAND. The Petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation, with supporting documents and a copy of the order, to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. [5][6]
The competent authority must consider the Petitioner's claim for the period from 1977 to 1980 and pass a reasoned order within six months of receiving the order. The decision directly requires reconsideration of that claim; no new precedent was set. [5]
Tapen Sen, J.:— Heard Mr. A.K Sahani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. I Sen Choudhary, learned S.C III for the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in this case.
2. The undisputed facts of this case is that the post of Head Master in the concerned school was lying vacant from 15.5.1977 and the Petitioner started functioning as Head Master-ln-charge in that school from 15.7.1977 However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that after having moved the Patna High Court in various writ applications a notification was finally issued on 8.5.1992 (Annexure-2) by which the Government gave approval to the Petitioner and recognized him as Head Master from the date of issuance of the order. The claim of the Petitioner is that he should be given the status of Head Master right from the date he started functioning and the period rendered by him in the capacity of Head Master-ln-charge should also be taken into consideration. He, accordingly, moved C.W.J.C No. 1636 of 1993 (R) which was disposed off by the Division Bench on 20.8.1993 The Division Bench inter alia recorded as follows:
“The contention of the Petitioner is that in view of the fact that the posts had been vacant and the Petitioner has been performing his duties of Head master-ln-charge. His case for promotion against the said post should have been considered with retrospective effect. According to the Petitioner he has superannuated on 31.7.1993 In this situation, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the entire materials and pass necessary orders as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to promotion to retrospective effect or not and if so from what date ….”
(underlining by this Court).
3. It appears that pursuant to the aforementioned order passed by the Divi sion Bench, the Respondents passed the impugned order dated 25.3.1994 (Annexure- 4). By reason of the impugned order, it appears that the Director, Secondary Edu cation has merely reiterated and taken note of the Government's approval dated 20.11.1981 and has merely stated that the Petitioner should be given the benefit of promotion w.e.f 2.10.1980 but nothing has been said in relation to the period for which the Petitioner had been working in the status of Head Master-in-charge, i.e 15.7.1977 to 2.10.1980
4. From what has been stated above, it is apparent that what the Petitioner delivered to the State was a service although it was in capacity of an “Incharge Head Master”. When the Petitioner continuously rendered his serivces faithfully without any blemish, there is no reason why the Respondents should not have taken this aspect into consideration at the time of passing the order. It was perhaps on the basis of the aforesaid consideration that the Division Bench in the year 1993 gave opportunity to the Respondents in C.W.J.C No. 1636 of 1993 (R) vide order dated 20.8.1993 to decide this question once for all and in accordance with law but it appears that the Respondents have not acted strictly as per the observations of the Division Bench. What is more frustrating is that the Respondents did not even file any counter affidavit in this case. In that view of the matter this Court has no option but to once again remand the matter to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in respect of the period of 1977-1980 indicated above and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Such a reasoned order must be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the convenience of all the parties and considering the fact that the State of Jharkhand has now come into existence, it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith copies of documents including a copy of this order before the Director, Secondary Education Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi so to enable him to do the needful in the matter in accordance with law.
5. With the aforementioned observa-tions and directions this Writ Application stands disposed off. After the above mentioned order had been dictated, Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, counsel for the Respondents made a request for supply of a copy of this order. Request granted. Office to do the needful.
Alert