KANTI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application there are four Petitioners. Their prayer is that the Respondents be directed to pay them their salaries with effect from 2.10.80 instead of the date from which they had acquired the Teachers Training qualification. According to the Petitioners they were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the Managing Committee of Maharshi Mehi High School Athagama Raghopur, P.S. Kharik lying in the district of Bhagalpur between the period 1968 to 1975. Admittedly this school was subsequently taken over by the Government under the provision of Section 3(1) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1980 with effect from 2.10.1980. This Ordinance was subsequently made an Act being Act No. 33 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only).

(2.) Admittedly at the time of taking over of the school the qualification of the Petitioners was merely that of untrained graduate. Despite the taking over of the school the Government did not take over the services of the Petitioners. This action of the Government was challenged by these Petitioners by filing a writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 4979 of 1984. In the said writ application the State Government repudiated the claim of the Petitioners with regard to taking over of their services by stating that under Section 4(2) of the Act the service of only those employees had been taken over who were working against sanctioned posts in recognised non-government schools on the date of taking over, i.e. 2.10.1980. It was specifically stated that the services of the Petitioner had never been recognised by the Government and. therefore, there was no occasion for taking over of their services. In paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit it was further stated that the Government has issued a Circular bearing No. 25550-80 dated 19.9.81 whereby a policy decision was taken to provide training facilities only to untrained teachers working against sanctioned posts in the schools recognised between 15.10.77 to 12.10.80 and if such teachers complete their training successfully then necessary instructions were to be issued with regard to their appointment on the basis of interview conducted by the School Service Commission. It was stated in the counter affidavit that in this view of the matter there was no occasion to regularise the services of the Petitioners merely on taking over of the school and their cases for appointment can be considered only after they get themselves trained and thereafter their names are duly recommended by the School Service Commission. Keeping in view this stand of the Respondents this Court disposed of the earlier petition on 11.9.87 filed by the Petitioners alongwith some other similar writ application granting a liberty to the Petitioners to file a representation before the Respondent-Director, Secondary Education which was to be disposed of within four weeks from such filing.

(3.) It has been stated by the Petitioners that pursuant to the direction in the earlier writ application referred to above, the Respondent-Director disposed of their representation under his memo No. 295 dated 11.3.88 directing therein that the services of the Petitioners are being recognised from the date on which they have acquired the training qualification. In paragraph-15 of the writ application it had been stated that Petitioner nos. 2 to 4 had passed their training examination on 21.12.84 and Petitioner No. 1 passed the same on 18.1.85. I am unable to understand as to how in view of the Government decision contained in Circular No. 25550-80 dated 19.9.81 referred to above the Director himself has granted appointment to these Petitioners by way of recognising their services retrospectively from the date of passing of training examination by these Petitioners because as per the Government decision as also the provisions made under the Act and the statutory rules framed thereunder the Assistant Teachers could have been appointed only on the oasis of the recommendation of the School Service Board. Be that as it may, in my opinion, under no circumstances the Petitioners can be said to be entitled for any arrear of salary with effect from 2.10.80. It is because admittedly the Government had not recognised their services as government servant and in the earlier writ applications keeping in view the stand of the Government as disclosed in the counter affidavit referred to above the Petitioners had failed to get the desired relief on this score.