IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10127 of 2010 1. ANJANI NANDAN PRASAD S/O SHIYAWAR SHARAN R/O MOHALLA- SHASTRI NAGAR, ROAD NO.4, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA 6. THE HEADMASTER, HINDI MIDDLE SCHOOL, GEWAL BIGHA, GAYA *** For the petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Ravi Shankar, AC to GP 7 *** 2 16.07.2010 By this writ petition, the petitioner, who has to retire within a month, has challenged the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya as contained in Memo No 2278 dated 06.05.2010. The petitioner was initially recruited as an Assistant Teacher. In due course of time, he, having acquired B Sc trained qualification, was given pay scale in respect thereof. He was noticed against wrongful promotion granted to him by notice dated 29.03.2010. The notice is Annexure-3. The notice clearly states that petitioner had been promoted without considering the available post and without following reservation policy. When this was done, how this was done, what were the facts in relation thereto, have not been stated in the notice. Petitioner filed a show cause. He clearly stated that he had initially got I Sc trained scale in 1976 and B Sc trained scale in 1983. He then clearly stated that the matter of his promotion was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year, 1995 and, thereafter, promotions were given. It is submitted that so far as 2 compliance to the reservation policy and other considerations, they have nothing to do with the petitioner. It is for the respondents to consider that matter and the Establishment Committee having considered that matter and granted promotion, petitioner cannot be penalised for the fault of the Establishment Committee especially when petitioner was not responsible for getting a wrong promotion. It is further stated that the promotion granted to the petitioner was due and was rightly granted. By the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya has held that the promotion granted to the petitioner was wrong. While holding so, he does not even spell out as to in what manner it was wrong. He does not state as to what specifically went wrong with the Establishment Committee when it granted the promotion over a decade and a half back. Further, he states that the order notes that it was in 1987 that he was wrongly granted B Sc trained scale which is absolutely wrong. Petitioner was granted B Sc trained scale in 1983. These matters were duly considered by the Establishment Committee in 1985 when promotion was granted. Petitioner, thus, submits that even his show cause has not been considered. The order has been passed on extraneous consideration in most mechanical manner. Having heard the parties, considered the matter, perused the order, in my view, petitioner is correct. The order cannot be sustained. In the show cause only one ground was given and that was with regard to without post being available and without following reservation policy, promotion was granted. Both of which, as noted above, are not acts of the petitioner. They are for the Establishment Committee to consider and to 3 pass orders but when we come to the impugned order, the question of post not being available is given up but it is stated that reservation policy has not been followed. In what manner, it has not been followed, it is not stated. Further, another new ground is given that in 1987, the petitioner obtained undue advantage and secured B Sc trained scale which is factually incorrect. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside giving liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings and upon proper consideration, pass a reasoned order afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)