Shyamali Mandal vs The State of Bihar now Jharkhand & Anr

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter

alia prayed for quashing order dated 13.01.2009 passed by

respondent no. 2 whereby petitioner''s claim for regularizing his

services as Head Master at least on completion of seven years of

service from the date of reorganization/taken over of the school i.e

31.12.1988 has been rejected.

The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner having possessed

the requisite qualification and experience was appointed as

Headmaster in the year 1975 in Ram Mandir B.P.J High School,

Deoghar. It has further been averred that the Secretary, Bihar

Secondary Education Board, Patna accorded permission for

establishment of the school, namely, Ram Mandir B.P.J High

School, Deoghar vide memo dated 11.10.1976. Accordingly, a

Special Board was constituted, who upon inspection of the school

in question gave recommendation for recognition of the school by

the State Government. Pursuant thereto, the Special Secretary,

Department of Education, Bihar vide letter dated 31.12.1981 gave

approval for eight teachers, one clerk and two peons, but, the

petitioner was made only In-Charge Head master. Being aggrieved

the petitioner approached Director, Secondary Education, Bihar

and also communicated order passed by Hon''ble Patna High Court

in C.W.J.C No. 6291 of 1985 dated 09.03.1999 whereby the

Hon''ble Court directed the respondent-authority to appoint the

petitioner as regular Headmaster after completion of seven years

from the date of taking over of the school i.e. 31.12.1981 in view of

order passed in A.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as

reported in (1998) 2 SCC 411.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after

creation of State of Jharkhand, the petitioner approached this

Hon''ble Court by filing W.P (S) No. 4052 of 2004, which was

disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2008 setting aside the order

passed by respondent-authority and a direction was issued to

pass a fresh order keeping in view the orders of the High Court

and Supreme Court, but, the respondents-authority

misinterpreting the judgments mentioned above, passed the

impugned order dated 13.01.2009 rejecting the claim of the

petitioner for regularizing his services as Head Master from the

date of reorganization/taken over of the school i.e 31.12.1981.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that other

similarly situated person, namely, Puran Chandra Mahto has

been given such benefit but the petitioner has been subjected to

hostile discrimination. In support of his case, learned counsel for

the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of

Mahesh Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as reported in

2004(1)JCR 502 (Jhr).

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

petitioner cannot claim benefit of letter dated 20.11.1981 as at the

time of taking over of school on 31.12.1981, he was Assistant

Teacher and in the notification of taking over of school, it was

clearly mentioned that he will act as In-Charge Head Master till

permanent headmaster is appointed, which fact is also reflected

from the service book of the petitioner that at the time of taking

over of school, he was not a full-fledged Headmaster. It has

further been submitted that the authority in compliance of the

order dated 07.05.2008 passed in W.P. (S) 4052 of 2004,

considered all aspects of the matter and passed the impugned

order, which never warrants interference by this Court.

From perusal of impugned order dated 13.01.2009, it

appears that the much emphasis has been laid by the

respondents-authority on the fact that the school itself was

established in the year 1976 whereas the petitioner claims his

appointment on 14.12.1975 and at the time of taking over of

school, the petitioner was Assistant Teacher and was made only

In-charge Headmaster and further petitioner failed to show the

attendance register from the date of appointment till the date of

taking over of the school and did not give proper recognition of the

laws laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in A.K. Pradhan

(Supra). Furthermore, the respondents are silent on question of

discrimination, as the petitioner has claimed parity with one

Puran Chandra Mahto. From perusal of record, it appears

that for almost self-same relief, it is the third round of litigation.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated

13.01.2009 is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed

to regularize the services of the petitioner as Headmaster on

completion of seven years from the date of taking over of school

i.e. 31.12.1981 and extend all consequential benefits, for which,

he is entitled to within a period of four months from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ

petition stands allowed.