BRAHMDEO CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 729 dated 04.03.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 has been rejected. It has further been prayed therein that the petitioner be confirmed as a Headmaster along with all the consequential benefits appertaining thereto. The petitioner, in the year 1981, was appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher in Adivasi High School, Chhapargarha by the Managing Committee where he joined on 15th January, 1981. In the meeting held on 19th January, 1981, the Managing Committee had decided to appoint the petitioner in the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of 510 -1000 with other allowances and in terms of which Office Order as contained in Memo No. 7 dated 21st January, 1981 was issued by the Secretary of the School by which the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Managing Committee was appointed in the post of Headmaster.

(2.) IN terms of the Letter No. 109 dated 15th March, 1982, the Special Secretary of the Government of Bihar indicated about the decision of the Government to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna about taking over 72 Secondary Schools including the school in which the petitioner was Headmaster. Recommendations were made for the appointment of teachers vide Letter No. 6404 dated 14th November, 1983 and subsequent thereto vide Office Order issued in Memo No. 8305 dated 24.11.1983, the District Education Officer, Giridih appointed amongst others the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the said school. Vide Letter dated 18.09.1995, the District Education Officer, Dhanbad -cum -Bokaro recommended the case of the petitioner for approval of his appointment as founder Headmaster in terms of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and others, ( : 1998 AIR SCW 3882). Although, in spite of the fact that the recommendation of the case of the petitioner was made by the District Education Officer, Bokaro dated 20.12.1999 since no concrete action was forthcoming the petitioner filed a writ application in W.P.(S) No. 5294 of 2001 which was disposed of on 16.10.2001 directing the Director Secondary Education to decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order. The representation submitted by the petitioner was however rejected by order dated 25.06.2002 which led to a second round of litigation and ultimately an order was passed on 16.07.2008 in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 in which it was held that since the Director of Secondary Education, Jharkhand. Ranchi did not consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and others the matter was remitted to the Director Secondary Education, Ranchi to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in that regard. The petitioner preferred a representation but by the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 729 dated 04.03.2009, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the petitioner resulting in the present round of litigation.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster in Adivasi High School, Chhapargarha pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee and since then the petitioner is working as a Headmaster. It has been submitted that every time the case of the petitioner is being remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration, the authorities are coming up with a new plea in order to deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim. It has been submitted that even though in the first round of litigation the respondent No. 2 was directed to take decision as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered in the case of A.K. Pradhan v. The State of Bihar and others, ( : 1998 AIR SCW 3882) but ignoring the same the claim of the petitioner was rejected on altogether different ground. Subsequently when the case of the petitioner was once again remanded by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6868 of 2002 the respondent No. 2 has come up with a new plea that the petitioner has failed to produce any proof to show that he was working as a Headmaster. It has further been submitted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner that all the necessary documents have been submitted which would be evident from the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11.08.2008 as the enclosures in the said representation clearly indicates the same.