BINDESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 dated 11.11.1998 and 23.9.1998 respectively whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner as Headmaster since 30th June, 1974 has been rejected. Annexure 1 is the communication of the order passed by the Director dated 23.9.1998.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to an advertisement on 4.7.1967 in the matric trained scale. He thereafter passed intermediate examination and also B.A. examination and keeping in view his qualification he was appointed as Headmaster of the School with effect from 30th June, 1974. His appointment made by the Managing Committee, however, was approved by the Sub -Divisional Education Officer. The petitioner thereafter, passed diploma in teaching and having got the diploma certificate he applied before the Managing Committee for grant of B.A. trained scale which was granted with effect from 10.4.1977 vide order dated 12.4.1977 and subsequently, the school was taken over under the provisions of Bihar Non -Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 1.4.1978. At the time of taking over of the school service of the petitioner was acknowledged as the Headmaster of the School in B.A. trained scale. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.3.1987 one Ram Naresh Sharma was appointed as Headmaster of the school in question and the petitioner consequently thereto, was demoted to the post of Assistant Teacher which, ultimately, was challenged by him before this court in the earlier writ application as referred to above where the order passed by the authorities appointing Ram Naresh Sharma as Headmaster was stayed. The petitioner, by virtue of the interim order, continued as Headmaster of the school and till date he is functioning as Headmaster of the school in B.A. trained scale. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the petitioner continued throughout as Headmaster of the school in question in B.A. trained scale would be evident from the earlier order passed by this court as contained in Annexure 15 and also the subsequent order passed by the authorities directing recovery of excess payment vide order as contained in Annexure 23. dated 17.10.2005. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the matter was remanded to the Director by this court, the real issue was not decided nor the Director recorded a finding as to whether initially the petitioner was appointed in the matric trained scale and thereafter in B.A. trained scale and he continued to function as Headmaster of the school. The Director has also not recorded a finding as to whether after coming into force of the Act by virtue of which the school was taken over, the services of the petitioner were acknowledged as Headmaster of the school in B.A. trained scale.