Amrendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16402 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Amrendra Kumar, Son of Late Radheshyam Thakur, Resident of VillageLattipur, P.S. - Bihpur, P.O. - Lattipur, District- Bhagalpur. Presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Haridashpur (Purvi), P.S. - Nathnagar, Bhagalpur.

2.

Rajiv Kumar, Son of Late Diwakar Yadav, Resident of Village- Kolgama, P.S.- Sultanganj, P.O.- Tilakpur, District- Bhagalpur. Presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Goshaidashpur, P.S.- Nathnagar, Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

6.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur. 7.

The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur.

8.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. K. Ranjan, AC to GP-17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners raising the grievance of discrimination in the matter of sending the petitioners for in service training. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to

Patna High Court CWJC No.16402 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 2/3 the lapse of the respondents these petitioners were sent for training belatedly and as such the petitioners cannot be made to suffer.

Similar issue was decided by this Court on 11.04.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 7322 of 2017. The relevant part of the order is quoted herein below:

"The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that he has been made to suffer on account of lapse of the respondents in sending for in service training belatedly.

Referring to Annexure-1 he submits that it was the obligation of the respondent authorities to send the petitioner for in service training particularly with reference to Clause-4 (Annexure-1) but the respondents have failed to send the petitioner for in service training and on account of their failure the petitioner has been subjected to denial of pay scale of trained teacher.

He submits that there is no lapse on the part of the petitioner and on account of dilly-dally and lapse of the respondents, the petitioner was not sent for in service training earlier and as such he cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse of the respondents.

Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Chagala of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in AIR 1954 Bom.232 the court is of the view that petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16402 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 3/3 respondents in belatedly sending the petitioner for in service training, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner and it is found that the petitioner has passed the training at the first instance, the interest of the petitioner should be protected. In view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in All India Groundnut (Supra) as well as the decision of the Apex Court on similar line reported in AIR 1989 SC 1133.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of matric trained scale on completion of 3 years from the date of joining of the petitioner as he cannot be faulted in the matter of non-sending the petitioner for service training. Necessary decision in this regard may be taken by the respondents within a period of sixty days and consequential benefit should be extended to the petitioner within a further period of one month from the date of such decision."

Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of in the similar terms.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U