Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1059 (JHR)

Md. Ismail v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-07

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, A.C.J. – This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3503 of 2015 dated 9th December, 2016, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and thereby the claim of the appellant to be appointed as an In-charge Headmaster of the School at which he is working, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred this present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is claiming to be appointed as In-charge Principal of Gaya Nath High School, Amanat Piyarpur, District-Sahibganj, mainly on the ground that he has got more experience as a Teacher and he is senior-most teacher. 3. It appears from the facts that the aforesaid School is run, managed and operated by the minority, for the minority. The Management of the aforesaid School by their decision dated 31st May, 2012 appointed respondent no. 7 as an Incharge Principal. By an order dated 27.11.2012 of the District Education Officer, Sahibganj, this appellant was appointed as an In-charge Principal of the aforesaid School, but, the said order was modified immediately within a couple of days and on 05.12.2012, again the respondent No. 7 was appointed as an In-charge Principal of the said School, by the District Education Officer, Sahibganj and there is a reiteration of this order again by a communication dated 24th June, 2014 by the very same officer. 4. Thus, it appears that respondent No. 7 has been appointed as an In-charge Principal with effect from 31st May, 2012 by the management of the School. This was confirmed by the District Education Officer, Sahibganj by a communication dated 05.12.2012 and further this is confirmed once again by another communication dated 24th June, 2014. 5. The claim of this appellant cannot be accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that there is nothing like a statutory post, viz., "In-charge Principal". The respondent No. 7 is given charge of the post of Principal, because, the post of Principal was vacant in the year 2012. Moreover, there is no legitimate right vested in this appellant to be appointed as an In-charge Principal. The respondent No. 7 is given charge of the post of Principal, because, the post of Principal was vacant in the year 2012. Moreover, there is no legitimate right vested in this appellant to be appointed as an In-charge Principal. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating this aspect of the matter while dismissing the writ petition. We also see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 3503 of 2015 order dated 9th December, 2016. We are in complete agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. 6. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.