Moti Kumari vs The State of Jharkhand

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.04.1984 in Primary School, Nagfeni, Sisai, District Gumla in the Matric Trained Scale. She acquired the Graduation qualification in the year 1987, as per annexure-2 marks sheet and Master of Arts qualification in the year 1994, as per annexure-3 Marks Sheet. The grievance of the petitioner is that persons who are junior to the petitioner and have acquired qualification later on, have been shown higher in the gradation list. She has further made a prayer to promote her in Grade-IV as she possesses requisite qualification and there are vacant post. She has compared herself to that of Shobha Kumari who has been granted promotion to Grade-IV. She has further basis for making such a claim on the ground that she is 50% handicapped, as per certificate enclosed at annexure-6, issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gumla dated 03.01.2001.

Petitioner and Shobha Kumari were appointed by a common appointment letter dated 16.04.1987 (Annexure-1) where the name of Shobha Kumari appears at serial No. 11 while the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 16. Shobha Kumari apparently was higher in merit list at the time of her appointment and on that ground, petitioner cannot allege discrimination in the matters of grant of promotion to Grade-IV. So far as the contention that the persons who have acquired qualification later than the petitioner have been shown higher in the gradation list is concerned, though a general statement have been made at para-10 but without giving specific names of such persons. The contention of the petitioner is that in the gradation list which is annexure-5/1 prepared for promotion to Grade-IV by the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Gumla (Respondent No. 5), petitioner''s name is at serial No. 48 while the others who have acquired Graduation qualification later than the petitioner are senior to her. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondents ought to have considered her claim for promotion to Grade-IV after rectification in the gradation list and also keeping into account her disability in view of the notification of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand bearing Memo No. 7281 dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure-6/1) whereunder, the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 have been given effect to.

Counsel for the State however resisted the prayer, though no counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf till date.

Prima facie, on the plea of the petitioner that she should have been also granted promotion to Grade-IV like Shobha Kumari, this Court is not satisfied that while granting promotion to Shobha Kumari who apparently was senior in the merit list, as per the order of appointment, petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents. As already observed herein-above, contention of the petitioner in relation to the errors in gradation list do not appear to be substantiated by necessary particulars, nor such details of such persons have been averred in the writ petition, neither they are parties. Petitioner however appears to have represented before the respondents for consideration of her case. Therefore, though this Court is not prima facie rendering any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner for correction of the gradation list in the absence of material particulars, it is deemed appropriate to allow the petitioner to make a fresh representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents in respect of the aforesaid claim for correction of the gradation list and also consideration of her claim for promotion in view of her disability to Grade-IV, before the Respondent No. 5-District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. On receipt of such representation, Respondent No. 5 shall consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and after proper consideration of all relevant records including those who may be affected on account of such decision, take a decision within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.