SADHU SHARAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of Middle School with effect from the date juniors to him have been promoted.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.1.1965 in matric trained scale and at that time, he possessed the qualification of matric trained. After joining the post, petitioner enhanced his qualification and ultimately passed the Master of Arts examination in the year 1983 and in the said year also got training. According to him, having enhanced the qualification, he was entitled to get the B.A. trained scale but when he was not so given, he alongwith another teacher preferred C.W.J.C. No. 5690 of 1985 (Kedar Nath Singh & Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 3.1.1986 (Annexure -1), disposed of the writ application with the direction to the authority to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of B.A. trained scale within three months. Ultimately, according to him, by order dated 14.7.1988, he was granted B.A. trained scale with effect from 10.4.1981. Lateron, the order dated 14.7.1988 granting the petitioner the B.A. trained scale with effect from 10.4.1981, was found to be forged and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, the termination of service of the petitioner was found to be bad by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.7.1996 passed in L.P.A. No. 72 of 1994. Lateron, the validity of grant of B.A. trained scale with effect from 10.4.1981 was examined by the authorities and the same was found to be valid.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and in paragraph no. 10 thereof, it has been specifically averred that no junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Headmaster. As regards the plea of the petitioner in regard to respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 is concerned, in paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit, the answering respondent has stated that respondent no. 5 was granted promotion in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court, whereas respondent no. 6 was promoted from a different quota. So far as respondent no. 7 is concerned, answering respondent has stated that he was the founder Headmaster of the school managed by the Managing Committee and therefore, plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner, is absolutely misconceived. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.