Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1081 (PAT)

Rajnandni Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-21

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged Annexure 9 dated 15.3.2000, whereby and whereunder the District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria, has approved the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the post of Headmaster in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on the basis of resolution of the ad hoc committee of the school in question dated 25.5.1998. The petitioner has also challenged the order, as contained in Annexure 11, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Director, Primary Education, vide his letter dated 21.11.2000 has asked for pay fixation chart of respondent No. 7. 3. It is precisely submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the senior most teacher of Savitri Girls Middle School, Khagaria could have been allowed to function as Headmaster of the school and in no way, respondent No. 7 could have been appointed on the post of Headmaster. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 11.2.1975 and matric trained scale was given to her with effect from 27.1.1984, whereas respondent No. 7 was appointed with effect from 15.6.1995 and got his matric trained scale with effect from 15.6.1995. It is further submitted that basic scale of the petitioner is Rs. 1680A, whereas respondent No. 7 was drawing the scale of Rs. 1320.00 , and, in that view of the matter, the petitioner could have been appointed as Headmaster. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No. 7 had not got the requisite experience which is required as per the law that a person must have experience of seven years as a Teacher and respondent No. 7 since was appointed with effect from 15.6.1995, obviously, therefore, he had no requisite experience on the day he was appointed. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Bihar Taken Over Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules"), a person must be post-graduate trained. But, in the instant case, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 7 had the requisite qualification, therefore, the prescribed scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was not permissible to respondent No. 7. 4. But, in the instant case, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 7 had the requisite qualification, therefore, the prescribed scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was not permissible to respondent No. 7. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and also for respondent No. 8 submitted that the provision of the Rules has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the school was a private school managed by the managing committee. It is further submitted that respondent No. 7 though was appointed in the school in the year 1995 he passed the B.Sc. (Hons) examination in the year 1990 and thereafter he obtained B. Ed. degree in the year 1995 and pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1995 he applied for his appointment. The ad hoc committee of the school thereafter interviewed respondent No. 7 on 28.5.1995, and, accordingly, he was appointed on the post of teacher in the school. Subsequently, the managing committee of the school considered the case of the teachers of the school for appointment as Headmaster and finding respondent No. 7 as B.Sc. trained graduate appointed him against the vacant post of Headmaster in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not having the qualification of trained graduate and preference was given to respondent No. 7, as he was B.Sc. trained and merely because the petitioner was working in the school from before, the same would not confer any right upon her to be appointed on the post of Headmaster. 5. The school in question is managed by the managing committee, though it gets grants from the State Government. The appointment in the school is made by the managing committee subject to approval of the State authorities. 6. It is not in dispute that the school in question is not a taken over school, and, therefore, the provision of the Rules will have no application in this case. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that respondent No. 7 was B.Sc. trained and he was getting matric trained scale of Rs. 1200-2040, whereas the matric trained scale is not sanctioned, so far the petitioner is concerned, by the State authorities. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that respondent No. 7 was B.Sc. trained and he was getting matric trained scale of Rs. 1200-2040, whereas the matric trained scale is not sanctioned, so far the petitioner is concerned, by the State authorities. Thus, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 7 on the post of Headmaster cannot be said to be bad, as his appointment was made with the approval of the competent authority and the scale of Headmaster was sanctioned. 8. For the reasons and discussions, aforementioned, therefore, I find no merit in this application. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.