LOCHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner seeks for quashing Annexure '2' a letter dated 28.1.1981 passed by the District Education Officer, Madhubani, posting respondent no. 4 as the acting Headmaster of Bhola High English School, Deorh. According to the petitioner, he is as assistant teacher of the said school. He passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1952 and graduated in the year 1958 and also passed the Master of Arts Examination in the year 1959 and was placed in Second Class. Prior to his present appointment, he was an assistant teacher of L.U.S. High School, Mahrail, and R.P.M. High School Bajpatti, till his appointment in the instant school in the year 1961 vide Annexure '1'. In the year 1970 the petitioner passed the Diploma in Education Examination from Samastipur Training College and is thus said to be a trained teacher having more than ten years' teaching experience. He is, therefore, possessed of the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Headmaster as laid down in Circular No. 2305 dated 25.7.1977. Respondent No. 3, who was the prior Headmaster of the School in question, retired on 31.1.1981 and it is said that the petitioner being the seniormost teacher in the school, having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, was entitled to be appointed as Headmaster but superseding his claim and right to hold the post of Headmaster respondent no. 4 was brought upon his head as Headmaster no sooner the vacancy was caused by the superannuation of respondent no. 3. In so doing, the petitioner's case was not considered as would be manifest from Annexure '2', which is sought to be quashed. Several representations are stated to have been filed against the said posting and no advertisement was brought out for filling up the said vacant post. It is further submitted that the school being a unit, promotion to the school has to be made from the school itself after adjudication of the seniority of the teachers as per the Circular dated 25.7.77 and had that been adhered to, the petitioner, who is already in the selection grade from 1974, could have been automatically appointed as the Headmaster of the school.

(2.) In the counter -affidavit on behalf of the State it has been stated that the petitioner is not the seniormost teacher of the school but his position is no. 4, as would be apparent from Annexure 'B'. It is further stated that the petitioner was not recommended for appointment to the post of Headmaster by the Secondary Education Commission whereas respondent no. 4 was so recommended as would be apparent from Annexure 'C'. The petitioner has never acted as incharge Headmaster as claimed. It is also stated that the petitioner belongs to a different cadre of assistant teachers whereas respondent no. 4 was appointed as Headmaster by the District Education Officer on 17.6.80 vide Annexure 'D' Respondent No. 4 has been appointed as a permanent Headmaster for the vacant post and he has already taken over as such on 1.2.81 and is so functioning ever since. In paragraph 17 of the counter -affidavit it has been stated that there is no individual advertisement for any post in a school to be filled up. Appointments are to be made out of the panel prepaid by the School Service Board on the basis of advertisement and interview held by the Board and the said panel is drawn up on the basis of probable vacancies throughout the State. An advertisement in this connection was brought about in the year 1978 where the petitioner and respondent no. 4 appeared in the interview held in 1979 pursuant to the advertisement. The commission prepared a panel on the basis of merit cum seniority. The petitioner was not at all in the panel for being appointed as Head master whereas respondent no. 4 finds place in the panel. The contention that the prospect of promotion of the petitioner is done away with is misconceived and wholly unfounded for the reasons aforesaid as well as for the reason that his place in the seniority is below R.C. Mishra, A. Roy and P.P. Mishra.

(3.) An application has been filed on behalf of R.C. Mishra, the seniormost teacher, to intervene in this writ petition and to be impleaded as petitioner along with the original petitioner Lochan Jha. In the said intervention petition Ram Chandra Mishra has also assailed Annexure '2' by which respondent no. 4 has been posted to the vacancy caused by the superannuation of the previous Headmaster. The order dated 20.10.82 directed the intervention application to be considered at the time of the hearing of the main writ application.