GUNADHAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing upon the respondents to consider the approval of the post of Headmaster and for direction to the respondents to fix the pay on the post of Headmaster as per the pay scale for the period of 1998 onwards. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of differential amount for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 with statutory interest @ 9% till payment.

(2.) The facts in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1966 in the respondent no.3 school and thereafter qualified B.Ed examination in 1974 and M.A examination in 1978, thereafter the pay of the petitioner was revised and pay was fixed in the year 198 In the year, 1991 the petitioner was granted time bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1986 and accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed. In view of the vacancy on the post of Headmaster, the managing committee of the school vide its resolution dated 25.01.1998 appointed the petitioner vide letter dated 27.01.1998 as Headmaster of the school and the outgoing Headmaster handed over the charges to the petitioner and after taking charge of the post of Headmaster, the petitioner continued to discharge the duty on the said post. During his continuance in the post of Headmaster, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 105.2003 recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent no.1 for approval. But the said recommendation of the respondent no.2 failed to evoke any response of the respondent no.1 and in the process, the petitioner was made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2004. Since the office of respondent no.1 failed to act on the recommendation of the respondent no.2 for approval of the services of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster, the petitioner is entitled for the deemed approval for the post of Headmaster and entitled for the differential pay for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 with consequential service benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no.1 the petitioner has been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that inaction on the part of the respondent no.1 over recommendation made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 has resulted in deemed approval on the post of Headmaster which the petitioner served for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 on the basis of resolution of the managing committee of respondent no. Learned counsel further submits that the stony silence on the part of the respondent no.1 to act on the recommendation of the respondent no.3 who is competent authority under law for passing a resolution to fill up the vacant post of Headmaster cannot be legally justified so as to put the petitioner's services into uncertainty. In order to buttress her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.07.2012 wherein the circular dated 21.07.1983 issued by Director of Primary Education, Bihar which interalia envisages that the recommendation is to be made by the District Education Officer to the respondent no.1 i.e. Director, Higher Education for approval within a period of one month failing which it shall be deemed to have been approved.