DWARIKA NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner had the reason to come before this Court in the present writ application on the issuance of letter dated 15.1.2013 contained in memo No. 47 (annexure-6) issued by the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand by which his proposal for fixation of pay scale has been rejected and communicated to the District Superintendent of Education, Khunti.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Government recognized aided Minority primary school namely Lutheran Middle School, Marcha Torpa, Khunti on 5.3.1983 as an untrained teacher after following the procedure of such appointment. The services of petitioner and one another person namely Digambar Singh, who was also appointed as Assistant Teacher in GEL Middle School, Diyakel were approved from the date of their appointment respectively i.e. from 16.3.1983 in the petitioner's case by order contained in memo No. 140 Patna dated 6.3.1995 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar. In view of the aforesaid letter the District Superintendent of Education vide memo No. 863 dated 5.4.1995 issued the office order where under the scale of pay of the petitioner and other persons namely Digambar Singh were fixed. The petitioner's scale was fixed on Rs. 680-890-965. The petitioner, thereafter continued to be paid the salary on the release of grant in aid by the respective Government of Bihar and Government of Jharkhand as well till September, 2011 when the petitioner came to know subsequently that the pay fixation proposal in respect of the petitioner sent by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi has been refused by the Director, Primary Education through the impugned letter dated 15.1.2013.

(3.) Petitioner, has therefore, assailed the impugned order stating that the respondents after having approved the petitioner's service way back in the year 1995 and was getting salary on release of grant in aid to the school in question for more than 16 years are not justified in now refusing the fixation of pay scale of the petitioner. The same is wholly arbitrary on the basis of non-est ground. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the only ground for refusal of the petitioner's pay fixation is that at the time of his appointment he was not a trained teacher, which was required in terms of the circular No. 3915 dated 15.11.1978 under which no appointment in the category of Assistant Teacher in the government aided recognized minority school could be made after 1.1.1971.