HARE RAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Respondent No. 5. The controversy between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 appears to be for the post of In-charge Headmaster with the State authorities fueling the same by an order dated 22.9.2011 appointing Respondent No. 5 as such, but refusing to make a regular appointment nearly nine months later.

(2.) Neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 has a legal right to be appointed as an In-charge Headmaster. As the nomenclature itself suggests that it is an ad hoc interim arrangement pending a regular appointment. The Court considers a period of two to four months as more than sufficient to bring ad hocism to an end. The litigation is generated not by the petitioner or respondent No. 5 but by the authorities of the State who appear to be drawing their salary without discharging duties.

(3.) The order of the Regional Deputy Director dated 16.6.2012 is not considered necessary to be interfered with as the respondent State authorities are directed to ensure that a regular Headmaster whether it be the petitioner respondent No. 5 or any other is appointed in accordance with law within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.