Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 882 (PAT)

Hare Ram Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2012-06-27

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Respondent No.5. 2. The controversy between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 appears to be for the post of In-charge Head Master with the State authorities fueling the same by an order dated 22.9.2011 appointing Respondent No.5 as such, but refusing to make a regular appointment nearly nine months later. 3. Neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 has a legal right to be appointed as an In-charge Head Master. As the nomenclature itself suggests that it is an ad hoc interim arrangement pending a regular appointment. The Court considers a period of two to four months as more than sufficient to bring ad hocism to an end. The litigation is generated not by the petitioner or respondent No.5 but by the authorities of the State who appear to be drawing their salary without discharging duties. 4. The order of the Regional Deputy Director dated 16.6.2012 is not considered necessary to be interfered with as the respondent state authorities are directed to ensure that a regular Head Master whether it be the petitioner respondent No.5 or any other is appointed in accordance with law within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. The Court considers it necessary to fix a deadline to ensure that not only unnecessary litigation is prevented, employees are prevented heart burn and more importantly a Head Master is permitted to discharge his duties in peace with sincerity rather than walking the corridors of the Court protecting his status as an In-charge Head Master failing to look after the pupil. 6. Any observation in the order dated 16.6.2012 of the Regional Deputy Director has to remain confined in its relevance and application for this period of 30 days only and cannot be taken into consideration in any manner or for any purpose with regard to the regular appointment of a Head Master. 7. If no regular Head Master is appointed by the state authorities within the 30 days, the necessary consequences for lack of any Head Master in the institution shall follow with the credit going to the state authorities. 8. Needless to state that if any person is aggrieved by the regular appointment of a Head Master, it shall be an entirely new and different cause of action. 9. The writ application is disposed.