Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 250 (PAT)

Digamber Mishra v. Harshnath Jha

2003-03-03

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2003
Judgment 1. Respondent no.1 filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8539/94, in which the appellant was respondent no.5, challenging the order dated 15.9.1994 whereby the order dated 3.10.1992 was modified and direction was given to pay salary etc. to the appellant. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as teacher in Bhawani Bhawan Sanskrit Madhya Vidyalaya, Naraha in the district of Sitamarhi. Respondent no.1 was appointed Assistant Teacher in Sri Janki Sanskrit High School, Sitamarhi. The appellant was posted by the Chairman of the Board in Sri Janki Sanskrit High School, Sitamarhi. The Government vide its order dated 29th June, 1987 made it clear that the Board has no authority to direct posting of respondent no.6 in the said school and the action of the Board was illegal. Direction was given to send back the appellant to his original school. Vide letter dated 3.10.1992 the Government passed order for payment of salary to respondent no.1. By letter dated 15.9.1994 the order dated 3.10.1992 with respect to respondent no.1 was cancelled and direction was given to pay salary etc. to the appellant. The said order was challenged in the aforementioned writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the order impugned was quashed. The appellant has filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order. 3. Obviously the appellant was appointed in the Sanskrit Middle School whereas respondent no.1 was appointed in the Sanskrit High School. Middle School and the High School are quite different types of school and the teachers of one school cannot be transferred to the other school in such a situation. The appellant was a teacher in Middle School. His posting in Sanskrit High School in the circumstances cannot be said to be legal. Moreover, payment of salary etc. as has been directed vide order dated 15.9.1994 in no way can be held to be legal and justified. The learned single judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has allowed the writ petition. 4. On consideration, we find no merit in this appeal. Thus the appeal is dismissed.