SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are that Balika High School, Sabour District Bhagalpur was established on 3.1.1975, the appellant submits that the erstwhile Managing Committee of the School appointed the appellant -petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on 3.1.1975 and as Headmistress on 1.9.1975. The formal permission to establish the school was granted by the then Bihar Secondary Education Board on 4.6.1976. It is not in dispute that the school was taken over on 3.2.1982 under Section 3(3) of Bihar Non Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. In the notification dated 13.2.1982 of taking over the institution, the appellant -petitioner was shown as Incharge Headmistress. The notification further mentioned that the petitioner was authorised to function as the Headmistress till the appointment of regular Headmistress. This position continued for long many years and the petitioner -appellant did not raise any grievance against the said arrangement till 1995. The appellant -petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 959 of 1985 (Smt. Sushila Devi V/s. The State of Bihar). The said petition was disposed of on'.4.1996 by Hon ble Single Judge of this Court directing the Director, (Secondary Education) -cum -Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar to consider the grievance of the appellant -petitioner and if found necessary refer the matter to the concerned committee for necessary scrutiny and screening and, for passing a final order in accordance with law.

(2.) FROM the records, it appears that number of notices/ informations were sent to the petitioner appellant, but the petitioner appellant did not appear before the concerned authority, therefore, the authority by its order dated 12.6.1998 rejected the claim of the petitioner -appellant. The Director further held that the petitioner had worked for five years nine months and nine days on the date of take over counted from the date of the permission to establish. It accordingly held that as the petitioner -appellant did not possess the requisite qualification and the teaching experience, she was not entitled to be regularised as the founder headmistress.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner - appellant has submitted before us that the learned single Judge erred in not properly appreciating the ratio of the decided cases so also the impact and effect of circular no. 510 dated 20.11.1981 and yet another circular no. 511 dated 20.11.1981. It was also contended that the learned single judge did not take into consideration the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of A.K. Pradhan V/s. The State of Bihar and ors. [1998 (2) P.L.J.R. (SC) 2]. It was also submitted before us that if any person acquires the requisite experience during the tenure of service then the appellant -petitioner may be regularised. It was not disputed before us that on the date of take over, the petitioner -appellant did not possess the requisite teaching experience.