RAMPAD PANDIT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing portion of letter dated 05.05.2008 issued by Director, Secondary Education whereby the petitioner's name appearing at serial no. 8 of the said letter sent for approval of his appointment has been returned stating he has qualification of B.P.Ed and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant and approval to the promotion on the post of Headmaster w.e.f 03.04.2001 along with interest.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner, having qualification of M.A and B.P.Ed was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sri Vijay Bhakti Prem Suri Swetambar Jain High School, Madhuban, Giridih in the year 2001 and when in the year 1992, one Sr Bhim Sen Manjhi relieved from the post of Headmaster, the petitioner was made in-charge Headmaster of the said school by the Managing Committee of the said school and thereafter granted promotion to the post of Headmaster vide its proceeding dated 204.2007 and sent the same for approval. But, the respondents returned the proposal of his approval on the ground that petitioner possesses B.P.Ed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was duly eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster in terms of provisions of Bihar Nationalized Secondary School (Service Condition Rules), 1983, wherein besides other qualification, it has clearly been mentioned that the incumbent must possess "B.Ed, D.P.Ed or any other equivalent qualification of Teachers' Training. The petitioner contains the equivalent qualification of B.Ed i.e. B.P.Ed. It has further been submitted that similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.7822 of 2006, which was disposed of vide this Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2008 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and the same cannot be denied on the ground of coming into force of new Rules of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the case of one Manohar Kandula, who has been given promotion having qualification of M.A and D.P. Ed. Hence, it has been submitted that action on the part of respondents denying approval of promotion of the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal.