RAM NARESH 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 treat the petitioner as Headmaster of the School from the date of its take-over and for quashing the order dated 20th September, 1999 (Annexure-15) whereby the claim made by him has been rejected.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. Petitioner claims that in pursuance of the resolution of the Managing Committee of Chandra Jyoti Middle School, Larua in the district of Samastipur, by order dated 16.7.1971 (Annexure-1), he was appointed as such by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Chandra Jyoti Middle School, hereinafter referred to as the School, was an unaided Middle School at that particular point of time. By order dated 3rd of August, 1978 (Annexure-3), the school in question was taken over with its three trained teachers. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed C.W.J.C. No. 704 of 1983, Ram Naresh Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors., before this Court, inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondents to pay him the scale admissible to a trained graduate Headmaster. This Court, while considering the aforesaid writ application, observed that the petitioner, prima facie, seem to be the Headmaster of the School in question but in view of the stand taken by the respondents, refrained from recording any finding in this regard and observed that the matter be first decided by the Director of Primary Education. While doing so, this Court held as follows : --

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid order, the Director of Primary Education, by order as contained in memo dated 28.2.1992 (Annexure-5), held that the petitioner's claim of being a Headmaster of the School before take over, is not fit to be accepted. It seems that against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 5927 of 1992 and in the light of the observation of this Court in the said case, the matter were- examined by the Director of Primary Education after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the said order was maintained.