HARI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1983, the appellant alongwith some others filed a writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 680 of 1983, wherein a writ of mandamus was sought to recognize the services of the appellant and other petitioners as Assistant Teachers of Ram Jaipal High School, Khanpur, Police Station Dariapur, District -Saran. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17th March, 1988. The learned Judge, who disposed of the writ petition, did not record in the order dated 17th March, 1988 the stand of the respondent -State as regards such claim of the appellant. However, from the tenor of the order it appears that the appellant had contended that he was appointed by the School before coming into force of the Bihar Teachers Service Conditions Rules, 1972, which came into effect from 25th October, 1972, and, accordingly, though he was not a trained personnel, but by reason of the Rules framed in the year 1983 under the 1981 Act, his services were required to be recognized. By the order dated 17th March, 1988 this Court while recorded such contention of the appellant, directed consideration of the case of the appellant for recognition of his services. Subsequently on 8th February, 1991, the case of the appellant alongwith some others had been considered, when their services were not recognized only on the ground that the appellant and others were not named as teachers when inspection was carried out for the purpose of granting recognition to the school.

(2.) THE order dated 8th February, 1991 was assailed in the second writ petition, which has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. In the writ petition, it was contended by the appellant that the school was established much prior to 25th October, 1972 and the appellant was appointed by the school on 23rd August, 1972. It was contended that at the time of his appointment, there was no necessity that only a trained person can be appointed as an Assistant Teacher of a School, it was stated that the school applied for and obtained from the Sub -Divisional Education Officer permission to establish the school and on 28th June, 1976 while such permission was granted, the Sub -Divisional Education Officer recorded presence of the appellant in the school as an Assistant Teacher. It was contended that subsequently in 1979 the school got recognition and in August, 1980 an Ordinance came into force, which was later converted into an Act in the year 1981, and in terms of the provisions contained therein, on 2nd October, 1980 the school was taken over. It was contended that since the appellant was an employee of a recognized school, in terms of sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the school stood transferred to the State and by virtue of the provisions contained in Section A of the Act, the teachers of the school automatically became Government teachers, It was accepted that the name of the appellant did not figure in the inspection report which resulted in recognition of the school ultimately in the year 1979. It was, however, contended that the name of the appellant was not included in the said report, which resulted in the recognition of the school, only for the reason that he was not a trained teacher.

(3.) FROM the tenor of what has been stated above, it is absolutely clear that while the first writ petition was filed, the appellant was apprehensive that he being not a trained teacher, the same may stand in the way of his being recognized as a Government teacher as a consequence of take over of the said school on 2nd October, 1980. However, until that time, it does not appear, the case of the appellant had been considered. The Court, therefore, directed consideration of the case of the appellant and while the case of the appellant was considered, the State and its officers proceeded on the basis that the appellant was not an Assistant Teacher of the School as on the date of taking over of the school. In the circumstances, the appellant was required to establish, without any doubt, that he was present in the school as an Assistant Teacher on 2nd October, 1980. The appellant has accepted termination of his services on 20th June, 1978 but has contended that such termination was made on erroneous basis. The said state of affairs demonstrate that although in 1976, when permission was accorded to establish the school, the appellant was present in the school, but when the school got recognition in 1979 and later on nationalised on 2nd October, 1980, the appellant was not present in the school as an Assistant Teacher. In the circumstances, question of recognizing the appellant as a Government teacher as a consequence of nationalization or taking over of the school on 2nd October, 1980 does not arise. In such view of the matter, there -is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.