Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Prerna - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No.5274 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C. to G.A.I; Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that policy framing is the prerogative of the government, and mandamus cannot be issued without a statutory basis.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Child Care Leave - The petitioner sought direction for child care leave and policy implementation for maternity benefits. The court noted the absence of a government policy on child care leave and the delay in filing the petition. (Paras 1, 4, 5)
(B) Policy Framing - The court reiterated that policy framing is within the domain of the government and courts should not direct the government on policy matters. Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of a statute or rule. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for child care leave and policy implementation after a delay of over nine months without providing a valid reason or supporting government policy.
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for the petitioner's claims and emphasized that policy decisions are the prerogative of the government.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the petition and the absence of a government policy on child care leave.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government has the liberty to frame policies and courts should refrain from intervening in policy matters unless there is a clear statutory basis for doing so.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 2nd December, 2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby she had requested for child care leave for the period from 6th to 20th December, 2022 (total 15 days). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-State to make arrangement/separate rooms etc. at C.H.+2 High School Jhumri Telaiya so as to enable the petitioner to breastfeed her son during working hours. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Union of India to implement the ratified convention in lieu of Maternity benefits for State of Jharkhand in terms of mandate of Article 253 of Constitution of India read with Schedule VII-Union List entry 14 or alternatively for issuance of direction upon the respondent-State to come up with rules for Child Care Leave since the said power is enshrined under Schedule VII-Concurrent List-Entry 24.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. So far as the prayer for grant of Child Care Leave is concerned, on perusal of the relevant materials available on record, particularly the petitioner’s representation dated 2nd December, 2022, it appears that the petitioner had requested the District Education Officer, Koderma for grant of child care leave for the period from 6th to 20th December, 2022 (total 15 days), which according to her remained unresponded.
4. The petitioner herself has preferred the present writ petition after delay of more than nine months from the date of filing of said representation. She has also not assigned any cogent reason as to why the said delay has been committed in filing the present writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has also not brought on record any such circular/scheme/policy of the Government of Jharkhand with respect to grant of child care leave. As such, this court is not inclined to entertain the said prayer of the petitioner.
5. So far as other prayers are concerned, this Court has perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi & Others, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 383, wherein it has been held as under: -
“17. The High Court has found that the Government of Jharkhand, till date, had not framed any policy regarding the number of posts to be filled by physical trained candidates. How many posts of primary school teachers be filled up by physical trained candidates, in our opinion, is essentially a question of policy for the State to decide. In framing of the policy, various inputs are required and it is neither desirable nor advisable for a court of law to direct or summarise the Government to adopt a particular policy which it deems fit or proper. It is well settled that the State Government must have liberty and freedom in framing policy. Further, it also cannot be denied that the courts are ill-equipped to deal with competing claims and conflicting interests. Often, the courts do not have the satisfactory and effective means to decide which alternative, out of the many competing ones, is the best in the circumstances of the case.
19. As observed earlier, the High Court itself has found that there is no policy in regard to the number of posts of teachers to be filled up by the physical trained candidates in the State of Jharkhand. The Act and the Rules governing appointment in the State of Bihar do not govern the appointment in the State of Jharkhand and those have specifically been repealed by Rule 16 of the Rules. Further, the need of the two States may not be identical and it was therefore necessary for the State of Jharkhand to frame a policy in this regard. In the face of it, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in relying on the policy of the State of Bihar and directing for filling up 5% posts of the primary school teachers by physical trained candidates.
