IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.8908 OF 2007 INDU KUMARI, W/O LATE NAND KISHORE BISHWAS, R/O VILLAGE + P.O DHOLBAZZA, P.S FARBISGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR(SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR PATNA. 5.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 6.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ARARIA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------------- 12/ 20.12.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Deputy Secretary of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar dated 04.07.2007, whereby and whereunder, not only the adhoc promotion given to the petitioner for a period of six months on 24.12.2006 was cancelled but her seniority position at serial no. 149 of the gradation list was also sought to be omitted with a direction to place her in the gradation list on the basis of her becoming eligible for seniority w.e.f 22.06.1978, the date on which she had completed the teachers 2 training course. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would explain that the petitioner’s initial appointment was made in the year 1970 while she was holding the qualification of intermediate. He has also submitted that such appointment in high School with qualification of I.A was permissible in the year 1970. He has also submitted that the petitioner had become a graduate in the year 1972 and a trained hand in the year 1978 and therefore, her seniority position was reckoned in the year 1991 at serial no. 149 of the State gradation list on the basis of her first appointment in 1970 for being promoted on the post of Headmistress. He would further submit that if there was any complaint against the petitioner, as is apparent from the reading of the impugned order filed by one Ganesh Poddar, Assistant Teacher of High School, Kishanpur, Kishanganj, the petitioner ought to have been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. In this regard, he has referred to the categorical averment made 3 in the writ application that the principles of natural justice were not followed before passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has submitted that no right was vested in the petitioner on account of adhoc promotion which was notified after, only for a period of six months in anticipation of B.P.S.C and that the B.P.S.C also ultimately did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. She has also submitted that in the order of adhoc promotion of the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned that such adhoc promotion could be cancelled if any complaint was received as with regard to anomaly in the fixation of the date of approval of a teacher initially appointed by Managing Committee. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are two facets which would become clear from the a bare perusal of the impugned order. True it is that the petitioner did not get any right to continue her promotion after a period of six months in view of the clear provisions made in the adhoc promotion dated 24.12.2006 which was to be continued only 4 for a period of six months and/or the approval of the B.P.S.C whichever was earlier. From the proceedings of the B.P.S.C as brought on record in the interlocutory application filed for vacating the stay, it would however appear that the Commission had refused to recommend the case of the petitioner for promotion only on the ground that her adhoc promotion has been cancelled by the department and as such her case was not fit for being considered. Thus it would become clear that the persons who were granted promotion for a period of six months had limited right of being considered but in the case of the petitioner such consideration was denied only on account of the impugned order. This aspect of the matter will obviously make the impugned order stigmatic. That apart it is the case of the petitioner and has not been controverted by the respondents that on the basis of her earlier service history, she was given seniority position at serial no. 149 of the combined gradation list issued in 1991. If such seniority position was to be either 5 shifted or omitted, the petitioner had a right of at least being noticed and heard. The seniority of the petitioner even if fixed on a wrong basis of her qualification of intermediate and/or being untrained till 1977 may have furnished the respondents a reasonable ground to cancel the same and shift the seniority of the petitioner but that could not have done without issuing show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering all these aspects, this Court would remit the matter back to the State Government which will now decide the whole matter relating to eligibility of her promotion on the post of Headmistress/Headmaster as also her seniority strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In order to shorten this process, this court would give liberty to the petitioner to file her self contained representation both for restoration of her seniority at serial no. 149 of the gradation list as also for grant of promotion on the post of Headmistress on 6 the basis of her length of service. The competent Authority of the State Government will pass his order only after considering the facts mentioned in the representation filed by the petitioner, and that would also comply the principles of natural justice. Let such an exercise be completed by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner and if the petitioner is found fit for promotion on the post of Headmaster/Headmistress her case from due date shall be considered irrespective of the fact that petitioner has retired from service, during the pendency of this writ application. If however the petitioner is found unfit for promotion in view of her being an untrained teacher till 1977, her case will be rejected by a reasoned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)