KHWAJA ABDUL BARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case relates to dispute of seniority between the petitioner and Respondent nos. 5 to 8. By letter dated 31st of May, 1989 (Annexure -1) the Special Director, Secondary Education while justified the Principal of Madarsa Islamia Shamsul Huda, Patna the provisional gradation list by order dated 3rd of January, 1994 the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid letter dated 31st of May, 1989 (Annexure -1) and the letter dated 3rd of January, 1994 (Annexure -2), with further prayer to direct the respondents to grant first time bound promotion to him with effect from 11th of November, 1989 and for consideration of his case for promotion to the higher post in the Bihar Education Service Class -II.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case show that one Madarsa Islamia Shamsul Huda, Patna, an institute under the respondent -state is under the control of the Human Resources Development Department. In the said institute there are posts of Assistant Maulvies with separate scales of pay. At the time of 3rd Pay Revision Committee's recommendation the post of Assistant Maulvies had three scales of pay, namely: - Designation Scale Service 1. Assistant Maulvi 240 -396/ - Lower Subordinate Service (L.S.S.) 2. Assistant Maulvi 387 -600/ - Subordinate Education Service (S.E.S.), Junior Branch ASSISTANT Maulvi 415. -745/ -.Subordinate Education Service (S.E.S.), Senior Branch. 3. From the advertisements (Annexure 3/A and 3/B) it appears that two different qualifications were laid down for appointment to the post of Assistant Maulvies in the L.S.S. and S.E.S. respectively. While lower qualification of Maulvi with knowledge of Fannethzevid and Urdu writing was essential for appointment to the post of Assistant Maulvi in the L.S.S., higher qualification of Fazil with knowledge of teaching and Hadis, Fikhah, Arbi, Mantik and Falsafha with aptitude towards any of the aforesaid subjects were laid down for appointment to the post of Assistant Maulvi in the S.E.S.

(3.) SO far as the appointments of petitioner and the contesting Respondent nos. 5 to 8 are concerned, all of them were appointed as Assistant Maulvies, but such appointments were made in different scales of pay. It appears that there is a confusion relating to their appointment in one or other branch of the service, which I shall deal at appropriate place.