AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant promotion on the post of Headmaster and as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who subsequently acquired training for which result was published in the year 1984, is entitled for pay-scale admissible to Inter-trained teachers however, on the ground of the petitioner''s educational qualification at the time of his appointment he was granted the pay-scale of Matric-trained and the same has been continued to be given to him till date.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of . Jharkhand opposes the writ petition and submits that the writ petition suffers from laches and gross delay on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not disclosed his legal right for promotion on the post of Headmaster on the basis of any rules/regulation.
The facts pleaded by the petitioner in the present proceeding disclose that he was appointed on 15.04.1982 as Assistant Teacher in the Government Middle School, at Palamau and he received Teacher''s Training for which a certificate was issued in the year 1984. It appears that in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.05.1977, the petitioner was extended benefit as he belongs to reserved category of handicapped persons. It is averred that he submitted representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Medininagar, a copy of which has been produced vide Annexure-2 series. Perusal of the representation dated 20.02.2015 would reveal that the petitioner has claimed that 36 teachers who were appointed in the year 1989 were wrongly given Inter-trained pay-scale whereas, the petitioner has been denied such benefit, though he possesses degree in Intermediate as well as a Teacher''s Training Certificate. On the face of it, the grievance of the petitioner is frivolous. No one can claim parity in illegality. On facts averred by the petitioner, if 36 persons were wrongly given Inter-trained pay-scale, the petitioner cannot plead any legal right for extending such benefit to him.
Another grievance of the petitioner is in respect of his promotion to the post of Headmaster and his designation as Drawing and Disbursing authority. In the present proceeding the petitioner has not brought any statutory rule/regulation under which the petitioner comes in the zone of consideration for being promoted on the post of Headmaster.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is found entitled by the respondent-state for any benefit, which may come to him in due course, the present order shall not come in his way.