IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7206 of 1998 Bali Ram Rajak, son of late Jaya Mangal Rajak, resident of village Malbigha, P.S. Hilsa District Nalanda, at present posted as head teacher Primary School, Harnaha Tola, Chawk, Patna City, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Education Establishment Committee through its Chairman, the District Magistrate of Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna … Respondents ---------- 9. 29.7.2011 Heard Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application had initially assailed an order dated 19.3.1998, as contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder recovery was sought to be made from him on account of his illegal promotion in I.A. trained scale of pay and B.A. trained scale of pay. Subsequently the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application, I.A.No. 10680/1999 assailing the order dated 29th June, 1992, as contained in Annexure 8, whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the District Education Establishment 2 Committee dated 13.6.1992 for cancelling the promotion given to a large number of teaching including the petitioner on various posts of Headmaster, Graduate trained and I.A. trained scale of pay by Mr. Prem Shankar Srivastava, the then District Superintendent of Education was cancelled en masse on the ground that Mr. Srivastava had not followed the prescribed procedure and had given a number of promotions without its being channelized and approved by the District Education Establishment Committee. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the said decision of the District Education Establishment Committee as conveyed by the D.S.E., Patna in the letter dated 29.6.1992 may be correct for the teachers of general category but so far the petitioner is concerned, he belongs to Scheduled Caste category for which there was already a direction issued by the Director, Primary Education informing all the Collectors/ District Superintendent of Education that the post earmarked and meant for promotion 3 of Scheduled Caste should not be allowed to remain unfilled. He has submitted that it was in the light of the direction of this order of the Director, Primary Education that the promotion of the petitioner was notified under the order of the District Superintendent of Education dated 12.7.1991 vide Annexure 5 to the writ application. He would, accordingly, submit that when the respondents had passed the prejudicial order taking away the benefit of such promotion without following the principles of natural justice the same cannot be approved by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that from the order of promotion, as contained in Annexure 5, it would be clear that the case of promotion of the petitioner was never placed before the District Education Establishment Committee and therefore, the District Superintendent of Education by himself could not have usurped the power of the Committee for giving promotion to the petitioner. He 4 has further stated that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of the Director, Primary Education, seems to be misconceived, inasmuch as the case of the petitioner is of Patna District and he cannot get any benefit of exemplary case set out of Samastipur District as was the content of the letter of the Director, Primary Education. He would further submit that Mr. Prem Shankar Srivastava had made a large number of illegal appointment and promotion as a result whereof he was placed under suspension and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He has also submitted that the petitioner in fact was not eligible for promotion in B.A. trained scale of pay, inasmuch as he was never given promotion in I.A. trained scale of pay and/or selection grade thereof. Having heard counsel for the parties this Court would find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that once the petitioner’s promotion was notified its cancellation could have been 5 made by a specific order and that too after following the principles of natural justice. Admittedly a general order was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna on the basis of decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee for cancelling a large number of promotions given on the post of Headmaster, B.A. and I.A. trained pay scale. The policy decided in the meeting of the Committee may be correct but then when it was to be implemented it had to proceed by issuance of a show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing. There is no dispute to this aspect that such procedure was not followed, inasmuch as paragraph 16 of the writ application reading as follows: “That it is further stated that neither the respondent no.3 committee, nor respondent no.4 D.S.E. issued any notice of show cause in the matter and the impugned order contained in Annexure 6 was passed in an arbitrary manner violating the principles of natural justice.” has not at all been controverted in the counter affidavit. 6 That being so, this Court would allow the writ application and quash the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 6, so far it relates to the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that as the recovery was already stayed by this Court by an order dated 23.9.1998 the petitioner would not be subjected to any recovery till a fresh notice is issued to him and a decision is taken thereafter by the District Education Establishment Committee. The petitioner will appear with a copy of this order before the District Programme Officer, Patna within a period of two months from today, whereafter the District Programme Officer having examined the case of the petitioner would give a show cause notice to him for explaining the illegality in promotion of the petitioner in I.A. trained scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1978 and in B.A. trained scale of pay with effect from 2.5.1981. The petitioner will thereafter file his show cause reply which would be placed by the District 7 Programme Officer, Patna before the District Education Establishment Committee and a decision on the same will be taken by the Committee which will be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner in the meantime has already been given promotion on B.A. trained scale of pay in view of the subsequent order of this Court in the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2009(3) PLJR 384, the Establishment Committee will consider need of shifting back the date of promotion of the petitioner to any such date on which his juniors were given such promotion. If, however, they would not find any anomaly in the earlier order passed by the authority cancelling promotion of the petitioner they may also reiterate the same but the reasons in support of such a decision must be given and communicated to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of six months from the date the petitioner would appear before 8 the District Programme Officer alongwith a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/