MAHESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the petitions and Mr. Pradip Modi, GP I.

(2.) THE petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of his transfer as contained in letter No. 1750, dated 31.12.1998 whereby he was sought to be transferred as Assistant Teacher from Murma High School to Taimara High School and further for a writ directing the respondents to treat him as Head Master. Petitioners case is that on 7.1.1969 he was appointed as Founder Head Master by the Governing Body of the School namely, High School, Murma. On 26.2.1974, Government of Bihar accorded permission for the establishment of the said school and subsequently vide Memo No. 14721/26 dated 23.6.1977 the school was duly recognized and the petitioners services were taken over as Head Master. Again by Notification dated 20.11.1981 the school was taken over by the Government on 2.10.1980. Admittedly, ever after taking over to the school petitioner continued as Head Master and also Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Petitioner continuously worked on the post of Head Master till 30.6.1998 in the said High School at Murma when by general order of transfer dated 30.6.1998 petitioner was sought to be transferred from High School, Murma to High School, Katihar. Immediately, thereafter, another Office Order dated 22.7.1998 was issued staying the earlier order of transfer dated 30.6.1998. By another Office Order dated 31.12.1998 which is impugned in the writ application petitioner was sought to be transferred as Assistant Teacher to Taimara High School. The said impugned order was however, stayed by this Court in terms order dated 18.2.1999. In this way petitioner continued on the post of Head Master in the High School, Murma since 1969 till January, 2003 when he was superannuated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although petitioner did not complete seven years on the date of Notification dated 2.10.1980 from 26.2.1974 when the Government accorded permission for the establishment of the school but continuously worked on the post of Head Master even thereafter and thereby entitle to get the benefit of the post of Head Master particularly when he continued as such till the date of his superannuation. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 411. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Vyas Sharma v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 5519/84.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the submission of the learned counsel, I would like to consider the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan (supra). In that case appellant was Head master of an unrecognized High School which was taken over by Taking Over Act of 1981. The appellant represented the State Government for regularisation of service, which was not accepted. The appellant then approached Patna High Court which, relying upon the Full Bench decision dismissed the writ petition. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal observed that since the appellant completed more than seven years of service and became eligible for being considered for regularisation and accordingly directed that his case for regularisation as Head Master shall be considered with effect from the date on which he completed seven years of service. Relying upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Vyas Sharma (supra) held that petitioner was entitled to be regularized as regular Head Master of the School from the date when he completed seven years from the date of the establishment of the School.