JAY NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing an order passed by the District Education Officer of Monghyr appointing respondent No. 11 as the Headmaster of a school and an order passed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee directing the petitioner to hand over charge of the post to him.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed an Assistant Teacher in a Government aided school called the S.A.S. Higher Secondary School in village Ballia in the district of Begusarai, on the 2nd of August. 1949. Even before this he had worked in the same school as an Assistant Teacher from the 11th July, 1945 to the 29th May. 1946 and thereafter as Headmaster of a Middle School for more than a year. On the 21st of June. 1971 he was promoted to officiate as the acting Headmaster of the school and he has been serving since then in that capacity. On the 29th of June. 1971 an advertisement was pub--lished in the Searchlight inviting applications for the post of Headmaster of the said school. THE petitioner applied for the aforesaid post. For some reason or the other the interview could not be held for some time and the petitioner along with others was interviewed on the 5th of September. 1972. THE petitioner was found to be the most suitable candidate and. therefore, the Managing Committee passed a resolution on the 18th of September. 1972 giving him the first place amongst the candidates and selecting him for appointment to the said post On the 20th of September, 1972 the Secretary of the Managing Committee forwarded the resolution to the District Education Officer for the purpose of his approval to the appointment as required by the rules along with a tabular statement prepared by him of the qualifications etc. of the candidates. In this tabular statement, however, respondent No. 4, the Secretary, had wrongly mentioned that the teaching experience of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 11 were the same. In fact, the teaching experience of the petitioner was more than that of respondent No. 11 including the period during which he had worked prior to 1949, Further it is said that respondent No. 4 had intentionally omitted to mention in the said tabular statement about the petitioner's passing the short training course examination in the year 1954. THE District Education Officer received the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee on the 23rd of September. 1972 but passed no orders for some time. THE petitioner then made a representation to him in this connection on the 4th of November, 1972. THEreafter on the 6th of November. 1972 the District Education Officer passed the impugned order of appointment of respondent No. 11 (Annexure 8). After receipt of this order the Secretary of the School without even consulting the Managing Committee issued a letter of appointment to respondent No. 11 and also a letter to the petitioner asking him to hand over charge of the post to the aforesaid respondent (Annexure 10), THE petitioner received the letter on the 20th of November, 1972 but did not hand over charge to respondent No. 11. He filed the present application on the 21st of November, 1972.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 11. The main points which have been mentioned therein and deserve notice are the following :--