(Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. …………………………. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4055/2018), decided on August 22, 2023
Kamdeo Prasad Shahi ______________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Jharkhand and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. …………………………. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4055/2018)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand whereby it allowed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 477 of 2009, titled “The State of Jharkhand v. Kamdeo Prasad Shahi”, and after setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2008.
3. The appellant was one of the first teachers appointed in the Raghunath Shahi Project High School1, Govindpur in the district of Deogharh in January, 1978. According to the appellant, he was later on appointed as in-charge/acting Headmaster of the institution on 19th July, 1978. The institution was an un-aided private institution. The State of Bihar under the Scheme known as ‘project scheme’ came out with a policy to take over the non-governmental schools in the year 1981-82.
4. The institution acquired the status of government institution with effect from 15.03.1982 under the project scheme. The appellant claimed to have continued as the Headmaster of the institution even after it was given the government status. Under the Scheme there was a provision for regularization of the teachers as also the Headmasters. The appellant applied for regularization before the authorities but the same remained pending. He preferred a Writ Petition being CWJC No. 7638 of 1991 for the said relief which was disposed of by order dated 02.09.1992 with a direction to the authorities to consider the claim of the appellant. However, when the said directions were not complied with, the appellant preferred a contempt application before the High Court which was registered as MJC No. 330 of 1993. The said contempt application was disposed of on 2nd February, 1995 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to decide the matter by a speaking and reasoned order within two months after getting reports and examining the relevant records.
5. In the year 2000 under the Bihar Reorganization, a new State of Jharkhand was created. District Deoghar fell in the State of Jharkhand. The new State adopted the same service rules and the policy of the State of Bihar with respect to the service conditions, regularization etc. of teachers.
6. In the meantime, the Headmasters who were working in their respective schools which had been taken over by the government, were being regularized on completing 7 years of service. Claiming such benefit, the appellant filed another Writ Petition being WP(S) No. 4097 of 2004 before the Jharkhand High Court. This petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.08.2004, again with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to examine the grievance of the appellant and pass appropriate orders. In compliance of the same the claim of the appellant was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 04.02.2005.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition (S) 2700 of 2006 before the High Court of Jharkhand claiming regularization as Headmaster. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 12.12.2008, disposed of the Writ Petition and granted regularization from 1993 although the appellant had claimed it from 1985. The reason for granting benefit of regularization from 1993 was that the appellant had acquired the B.Ed. degree in 1986, which was an essential requirement and the educational authorities had approved his appointment as acting/in-charge Headmaster by order dated 20th August, 1986. The claim of the appellant for counting 7 years from initial appointment in 1978 was declined. The learned Single Judge further granted other benefits consequential to the regularization till the date of his retirement in as much as the appellant in the meantime had retired on 29.09.2008.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Jharkhand preferred an Intra-Court Appeal which has since been allowed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.2017. The Division Bench was of the view that once the Single Judge had not accepted the claim of the appellant to be a Headmaster of the institution from 1978 and had only accepted it from 1986, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of regularization.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the respondents had vehemently urged that the relevant service rules do not permit regularization of the appellant and as such the impugned judgment of the Division Bench does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the following factors, we are of the view that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of regularization from 1993 when he completed 7 years after the educational authorities appointed him as Headmaster with effect from 20th August, 1986. It is nobody’s case that the appellant never worked for the institution from 1978. It is also not the case that the appellant was not working after 1982 even when the institution was taken over by the government. The appellant worked for 30 years in the institution and, in any case, for 22 years after the educational authorities gave him appointment as acting/in-charge Headmaster in August, 1986. It is also not in dispute that there was a provision for regularization of Headmasters who had worked for 7 years. For counting the 7 year period, any period worked prior to the commencement of the project scheme could be counted for such regularization.
11. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the appellant was made the acting/in-charge Headmaster in August, 1986 and he continued as such till his retirement in the year 2008 for 22 years. It would be too harsh to deny him regularization upon completing 7 years as Headmaster as he had all the qualifications for such post.
12. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench and affirm that of the learned Single Judge.
13. Question of law, if any, is left open and this judgment may not be treated as a precedent as we have passed this order in the facts of the present case.
14. No order as to costs.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 The institution
