Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1239 (JHR)

Renu Bala Jha v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-12-11

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER 1. The petitioner Smt. Renu Bala Jha, an Assistant Teacher of Doranda Girls Middle School, Ranchi, an aided school, initially challenged the advertisement published in the Newspaper "PRABHAT KHABAR" on 23rd December, 2001 (Annexure-2), whereby applications were called for appointment to the post of Headmistress/Head Master of the said School. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 6th respondent (Rabi Shankar Chakraverty) having appointed vide letter dated 19th January, 2002 it has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an amendment petition (LA. No. 2130 of 2002). Such appointment was made in view of the interim order of this Court dated 10th January, 2002, during the pendency of the case. 3. According to the petitioner, the post of Headmistress/Headmaster of the aided school is a promotional post of the Assistant Teacher of the said School but such submission cannot be accepted. No rules/guidelines have been framed to fill up the post of Headmistress/Headmaster of an aided school, not taken over by the State. So far as the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1993 Rules"), the parties cannot rely on it as the said rules laid down in respect to the Teachers of the Elementary School taken over by the Government. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the 1993 Rules or Government Instructions is applicable for Private Government Aided School. 4. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the 6th respondent (Rabi Shankar Chakraberty) on the ground that he is not eligible as per the advertisement. He has brought to the notice of the Court that for appointment to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster vide advertisement dated 23rd December, 2001, applications were called, for from those who had five years experience of Headmistress/Headmaster or those who were in the Selection Grade Assistant Teacher. Admittedly, the 6th respondent (Rabi Shankar Chakraberty) was not Headmaster nor he was in the Selection Grade Assistant Teacher and, thus, he was not eligible to apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23rd December, 2001. 5. Mr. B.B. Sinha, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondent submitted that the 6th respondent having supervisory experience he was selected. That cannot be a ground to appoint the 6th respondent who is not eligible for appointment as Headmaster/Head- mistress as per advertisement. Mr. 5. Mr. B.B. Sinha, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondent submitted that the 6th respondent having supervisory experience he was selected. That cannot be a ground to appoint the 6th respondent who is not eligible for appointment as Headmaster/Head- mistress as per advertisement. Mr. B.B. Sinha states that the School will publish a fresh advertisement for appointment in which the petitioner and the 6th respondent may apply. In the meantime, the 6th respondent may be allowed to continue as Incharge Head Master of the said School. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the appointment of 6th respondent being illegal, against the provisions of the advertisement already published, the State is directed not to approve the appointment of 6th respondent. The School is allowed either to repatriate 6th Respondent to his original school or to take work of the post of Assistant Teacher. Till the post of Headmistress/Headmaster is filled up on regular, basis, the School will allow the senior most teacher of the School to function as Incharge Headmistress/ Headmaster. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.