Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 288 (PAT)

Ram Naresh Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-11

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as Headmaster of the School from the date of its take-over and for quashing the order dated 20th September, 1999 (Annexure-15) whereby the claim made by him has been rejected. 2. This case has a chequered history. Petitioner claims that in pursuance of the resolution of the Managing Committee of Chandra Jyoti Middle School, Larua in the district of Samastipur, by order dated 16.7.1971 (Annexure-1), he was appointed as such by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Chandra Jyoti Middle School, hereinafter referred to as the School, was an unaided Middle School at that particular point of time. By order dated 3rd of August, 1978 (Annexure-3), the school in question was taken over with its three trained teachers. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed C.W.J.C. No. 704 of 1983, Ram Naresh Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., before this Court, inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondents to pay him the scale admissible to a trained graduate Headmaster. This Court, while considering the aforesaid writ application, observed that the petitioner, prima facie, seem to be the Headmaster of the School in question but in view of the stand taken by the respondents, refrained from recording any finding in this regard and observed that the matter be first decided by the Director of Primary Education. While doing so, this Court held as follows : -- "xxx These documents against the empty allegations made in the counter affidavit prima facie indicate that the petitioner was, in fact, the Headmaster of the School in question. 5. This being a disputed question of fact, however, I refrain from recording-any conclusive finding in this matter and I wish that this matter should be first considered by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. I accordingly direct the Director, Primary Education to consider the matter, examine such records as he may deem necessary, hear the petitioner and finally record a finding as to whether the petitioner was the Headmaster of the School in question at the time of its take over i.e. 30.8.1978." 3. I accordingly direct the Director, Primary Education to consider the matter, examine such records as he may deem necessary, hear the petitioner and finally record a finding as to whether the petitioner was the Headmaster of the School in question at the time of its take over i.e. 30.8.1978." 3. In the light of the aforesaid order, the Director of Primary Education, by order as contained in memo dated 28.2.1992 (Annexure-5), held that the petitioners claim of being a Headmaster of the School before take over, is not fit to be accepted. It seems that against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 5927 of 1992 and in the light of the observation of this Court in the said case, the matter were- examined by the Director of Primary Education after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the said order was maintained. 4. As stated earlier, petitioner, all the time, claims to have been appointed as Headmaster of the School and by order dated 30th of June, 1996 when one Ram Naresh Tiwary was posted as Headmaster of the School where the petitioner was working, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 6994 of 1996, Ram Naresh Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., before this Court. While assailing the posting of said Ram Naresh Tiwary, petitioner averred that the post of Headmaster is not vacant as he is occupying the said post and without transferring him, said Ram Naresh Tiwary could not have been posted as Headmaster. This Court, negatived the claim of the petitioner in the following words : -- "The petitioner, though filed the writ petition enclosing different enclosures and has also filed a reply to the counter affidavit enclosing some other documents, he has not enclosed the copy of any order of appointment/ promotion to show that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Headmaster of the School. In absence of any order of appointment/promotion in favour of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, no relief can be granted by this Court. The prayer of the petitioner is, accordingly rejected." 5. However, while dismissing the writ application, this Court observed that in case petitioner produces the order by which he was appointed/promoted to the post of Headmaster of any School distinct from an order making incharge of any school, the District Superintendent of Education shall consider the case of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is, accordingly rejected." 5. However, while dismissing the writ application, this Court observed that in case petitioner produces the order by which he was appointed/promoted to the post of Headmaster of any School distinct from an order making incharge of any school, the District Superintendent of Education shall consider the case of the petitioner. In the light of the observation of this Court, the District Superintendent of Education, by order as contained in memo dated 27.1.1997 (Annexure-12), observed that the petitioners claim is into fit to be accepted as the same has already been rejected by the Director of Primary Education by order dated 26.2.1992. Thereafter, petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 4514 of 1997, Ram Naresh Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., before this Court and after some, argument, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the application to move before the Director of Primary Education against the aforesaid order of the District Superintendent of Education/This Court, by order dated 29.7.1997 (Annexure-13), accorded permission. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioner represented before the Director who by the impugned order dated 20th of September, 1999 (Annexure-15), rejected his claim. 6. Mr. Shyam Sunder Singh Shyam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer on account of omission on part of the respondents not to treat the petitioner as Headmaster of the School at the time of take-over. He points out that the observation of this Court in the writ application filed by the petitioner earlier supports his case. 7. Junior counsel to Standing Counsel No. III, however, contends that at the time of take-over of the school, the rights of the employees working in the school were considered and the school was taken-over with three trained teachers and the service of the petitioner was not taken over as Headmaster. He also points out that the observation of this Court relied on by the petitioner has to be understood in the context it was given and that itself shall not mean that the petitioners claim was accepted. 8. Having considered the rival submission. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Shyam. Undisputedly, by order dated 3rd of August, 1978, the school in which the petitioner was working, was taken over with three trained teachers. 8. Having considered the rival submission. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Shyam. Undisputedly, by order dated 3rd of August, 1978, the school in which the petitioner was working, was taken over with three trained teachers. Petitioners service was not taken over as Headmaster of the school. As regards the observation of this Court dated 20th March, 1991 (Annexure-4), the case of the petitioner was found to be prima facie acceptable by the Court but at the same time, this Court, made it clear that it refrains from recording any finding in this regard and the matter be decided by the Director, Primary Education. Had this Court given finding in favour of the petitioner, there was no occasion to direct the Director of Primary Education to consider the matter. In case, the Court was satisfied, nothing stood in its way to give the relief which the petitioner sought for in the writ application. 9. As stated earlier, petitioner aggrieved by the posting of Ram Naresh Tiwary as Headmaster, filed C.W.J.C. No. 6994 of 1996 before this Court. While dismissing the writ application by order dated 29.11.1996 (Annexure-11), this Court observed that in absence of any order of appointment/promotion in favour of the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him. Same situation is existing today. I am of the opinion that the claim made by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. 10. Mr. Shyam, further submits that the petitioner always worked and transferred as Headmaster of the School and as such, the impugned decision not to treat him as the Headmaster is illegal. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel. Even if I assume in favour of the petitioner that he was transferred from one school to another as Headmaster but that itself shall not make him the Headmaster of the School. This Court in the earlier writ application, clearly observed that in absence of any order of appointment/promotion as the Headmaster, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners service taken over as the Headmaster of the School or he was promoted as such at any point of time. In the absence thereof, the claim made by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. 11. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners service taken over as the Headmaster of the School or he was promoted as such at any point of time. In the absence thereof, the claim made by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. 11. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. No cost.