Indrajit Prasad Vinit vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.B. Sinha and I.P. Singh, JJ.—The Petitioner in this application has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to fill up the post of Headmaster in Dwarika Uchha Vidyalaya, Mandiri, Patna (hereinafter to (sic) referred to as ''the said School'').

The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass.

The Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. The Respondent No. 4 Smt. Radhika Sinha is a permanent Headmistress of a Project School. It appears that initially by an order dated 18.2.1989; the Respondent No. 4 was deputed to the said School as In-charge thereof in addition to her own duties as Headmistress of Project Girls High School, Phulwarisharif, Patna.

The deputation of the said Respondent No. 4 appears to have continued from time to time. By an order dated 12.9.1990 passed by Respondent No. 2 and as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application, the Respondent No. 4 was directed to handover the charge of the Project Girls High School, Phulwarisharif, Patna, to Smt. Ranjana Kumari but she was to continue to draw her salary from the same School.

The said arrangement was, however, made only for a period of one year from the date of issuance thereof.

The contention of the Petitioner, therefore, is that deputation of Respondent No. 4 having been made for a limited period, she cannot work as Headmistress of the said School upon expiry of the said period.

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the Petitioner has no locus standi to question the deputation of Respondent No. 4 as merely he is an Assistant Teacher. It was submitted that whether the Petitioner would be promoted to the post of Headmaster is not certain, and in that view of the matter, no writ can be issued in favor of the Petitioner.

It has further been contended that this writ application has been filed mala fide as would be evident from the fact that the Petitioner has leveled serious allegations as against Respondent No. 4. It was further submitted that 2000 posts of Headmasters are lying vacant and the said vacancies are to be filled up by the State Government.

Mr. Singh in support of his contention has relied upon a decision in Mrs. Indu Srivastava v. The Stale of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 372.

It is not disputed that in terms of the order dated 12.9.1990 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application, Respondent No. 4 was deputed only for a period of one year from the said date. It cannot be denied that a deputation is made for a purpose If the State Government itself have fixed a period of deputation, the deputantionist will have no right to continue on the said post on expiry of the said period.

In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that Respondent No. 4 cannot work as Headmistress of the said School after expiry of the period of deputation.

It is true as was submitted by Mr. Singh that the Petitioner has no locus standi to question the legality or validity of the order of deputation passed by the State of Bihar in favor of Respondent No. 4; he being an Assistant Teacher.

In Mrs. Indu Srivastava''s case (supra), this Court held as follows:

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner has no locus standi to question the order of transfer/deputation passed in favour of Respondent No. 4 as he is in the cadre of an Assistant Teacher.

The learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon an order of the Supreme Court in Dr. R.N. Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 1989 and Civil Appeal No. 2694 disposed of on 14th December, 1989, as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The learned Counsel further submitted, that deputation of a Headmistress of a Project School to a Nationalised School is not illegal.

The learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Chinta Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 139 of 1991 disposed of on 17th July, 1992.

There cannot be any doubt that the Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, she may or may be promoted to the pest of Headmistress. The Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, admittedly is in the cadre of Headmistress.

This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in R.N. Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2520 and 2694 of 1989. It appears that the aforementioned case arose out of an order dated 2.3.1909 passed In C.W.J.C. No. 2175 of 1989 (Jai Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar), wherein an order of transfer was questioned on the ground of malice in law as the same was passed by the Minister of Education and not the competent authority, i.e. the Director of Education.

It was held that the Minister Incharge being a higher authority, should not have passed that order of transfer as the Director is the competent authority to pass an order of transfer on the recommendations of the Establishment Committee. It was therefore, held that the order of transfer of Respondent No. 3 was stricken by malice in law.

As noticed hereinbefore, the matter stands on a different footing inasmuch as now it stands admitted that Respondent No. 4 cannot work as deputationist in the said School and the State Government should now issue an appropriate Notification relating to her posting.

In view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to go into the other question raised at the bar.