- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 07.01.2000. The brief facts of the case are that, initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by order dated 30.04.1976. He obtained Bachelor of Science degree in the year, 1980 and Master in Science degree in the year, 1991. The petitioner under-went Teachers Training Course in the Academic Session 1982-1983 and on completion of training, degree was awarded to the petitioner on 03.03.1984. The petitioner was granted B.Sc. trained scale by order dated 08.04.1991. The petitioner made representation for grant of B.Sc. trained scale from the date he was granted degree of Teacher Training Course and his juniors were granted the same. On the representation of the petitioner, B.Sc. trained scale which was earlier granted to the petitioner on 08.04.1991 was granted to him w.e.f. 01.04.1984 by order dated 29.05.1995. Subsequently, by order dated 26.10.1997 the order dated 29.05.1995 was recalled and therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 543 of 1998(R) which was disposed of on 20.07.1999 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to order dated 20.07.1999, the impugned order dated 07.01.2000 has been passed which is impugned in the present proceeding.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under: 6. That the statement made in paragraph No. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 18 to 29 of the writ petition require no comment. ............. 8. That the statements made in para-10 of the writ petition is misleading wrong and hence denied, it is submitted that only senior to the petitioner has been granted B.Sc. trained scale in accordance with vacancy. None of the junior to the petitioner has been granted B.Sc. trained scale. 9. That with regard to statement made in para-11 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner along with other teachers were granted B.Sc. trained scale vide Memo No. 4522 dt. 8.4.91 (annexure-5) by the District Education Establishment committee according to approved gradation list. 10. That with regard to par-12 and 13 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the District Education Establishment committee is empowered to grant promotion to primary teachers as per gradation list, make corrections to it But the then District Suptd. of Education Mr. Selestien Hansda by setting aside all the departmental rules granted promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect which is fit to be rejected. 11. That the statements made in para-14 of the writ petition are misleading and hence denied in view of facts stated in earlier paragraphs.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.;