PHULENA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought quashing of the order as contained in the letter dated 21-11-1985, whereby the claim of the petitioner for recognition as the founder Headmaster, as also his alternative claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster of the school in question has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notification of the State Government dated 25-11-1985 in so far as it relates to the posting of respondent No. 5, Baleshwar Prasad Pandey, as the Headmaster in the school. True copies of the aforesaid letter dated 21-11-1985 and the notification dated 25-11-1985 are marked Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are not in dispute. The school in question, namely, Gandak High School, Tarwara, in the district of Siwan (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') was established in January, 1971. The permission for its establishment and thereafter, recognition was granted respectively on 16-2-1974 and 11-4-1978 by the then Bihar Secondary Education Board under the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Ordinance (later, Act 25 of 1976). The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the school on 20-1-1973. He is said to have been later promoted to the post of Headmaster under the resolution of the then Managing Committee dated 7-1-1978. According to the petitioner, although he had been functioning as the Headmaster on the date of recognition, he was described as Incharare Headmaster in the order of recognition dated 11-4-1978, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner further, while the matter regarding petitioner's approval as the Headmaster of the School was pending many persons, one after another, attempted to be posted in the school but none of the orders could be implemented. The last person to make such attempt was one Habib Ansari, who was rested as the Headmaster of the said school by an order dated 7-6-1980. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 2674 of 1980. During pendency of the said writ petition Habib Ansari was posted elsewhere and in that view of the matter the writ petition was disposed of on 17-4-1985 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education, to consider the case of the petitioner regarding his appointment as the Headmaster of the said school in the light of the Government circular No. 510 dated 20-11-1981. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was considered and by the impugned order his claim has been rejected in the manner stated above.

(3.) Although, as stated above, this court had directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the Government circular No. 510 dated 20-11-1981, the petitioner appears to have canvassed his Case for his recognition as the founder Headmaster and, alternatively, for his promotion as Headmaster. At this stage, it may be mentioned that by the aforesaid circular No. 510 dated 20-11-1981 the State Government had laid down the procedure including the qualifications etc. for appointment by promotion in such schools where vacancy on the post of Headmaster had occurred prior to 2-10-1980 treating the school as a unit. By circular No. 511 of even date the State Government made provisions for appointment of such persons, who were working as founder Headmaster till 2-10-1980 subject to their fulfilling certain conditions and qualifications as mentioned therein. True copies of the aforesaid two circulars have been brought on record of this case marked as Annexures 8 and 8/1-A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents, stating, inter alia, that at the time of recognition of the school in 1978 the petitioner did not possess the minimum requisite teaching experience of ten years as required under the Government circular No. 2305 dated 25-7-1977, which was then in vague and, therefore, his services were not approved as the Headmaster at the time of recognition. As regards the claim for recognition, as founder Headmaster in terms of circular No. 511, it is again stated that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification.