RAJNANDNI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged Annexure 9 dated 15.3.2000, whereby and whereunder the District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria, has approved the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on the basis of resolution of the ad hoc committee of the school in question dated 25.5.1998. The petitioner has also challenged the order, as contained in Annexure 11, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Director, Primary Education, vide his letter dated 21.11.2000 has asked for pay fixation chart of respondent No. 7.

(3.) It is precisely submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the senior most teacher of Savitri Girls Middle School, Khagaria could have been allowed to function as Headmaster of the school and in no way, respondent No. 7 could have been appointed on the post of Headmaster. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 11.2.1975 and matric trained scale was given to her with effect from 27.1.1984, whereas respondent No. 7 was appointed with effect from 15.6.1995 and got his matric trained scale with effect from 15.6.1995. It is further submitted that basic scale of the petitioner is Rs. 1680A, whereas respondent No. 7 was drawing the scale of Rs. 1320/-, and, in that view of the matter, the petitioner could have been appointed as Headmaster. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No. 7 had not got the requisite experience which is required as per the law that a person must have experience of seven years as a Teacher and respondent No. 7 since was appointed with effect from 15.6.1995, obviously, therefore, he had no requisite experience on the day he was appointed. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Bihar Taken Over Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules"), a person must be post-graduate trained. But, in the instant case, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 7 had the requisite qualification, therefore, the prescribed scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was not permissible to respondent No. 7.