IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------------- Letters Patent Appeal No.1296 of 2010 ------------ Deo Narayan Pathak, Son of Sri Gouri Shankar Pathak, Resident of Village- Nonia Patti, P.S. Siwan, District- Siwan......................................................... Appellant Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra. 4. The District Education Officer, Siwan 5. Smt. Lalita Kumari, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Resident of Village- and P.O. Panjwar, District- Siwan. 6. Ramayan Yadav, Son of not known, the Assistant Teacher, Project Kasturva Girls High School, Panjwar, District- Siwan...........................Respondents ----------- For the appellant:- Mr. Rajendra Pd.Singh,Sr.Advocate Mr. Suhbh Narain Singh,Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajiv Roy, G.P.5 For Respt.5 :- Dr. M.P.Shukla, Advocate. ------- 3 16-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, Lalita Kumari. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 28-6-2010 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6884 of 2009 preferred by the appellant. The challenge in the writ petition was to an order 2 of the respondent/authority whereunder respondent no.5, Lalita Kumari was made incharge Headmaster of Kasturba Girls High School, Panjwar Raghunathpur in the district of Siwan. His claim was based upon the fact that he was appointed one month earlier to respondent no.5 and on that basis he was made incharge Headmaster of the school earlier in March, 1994. The claim of the writ petitioner/appellant was resisted by respondent no.5 on the ground that there is a Government policy that only a lady teacher or Headmistress had to be posted in a Project Girls High School and only when no such lady teacher or Headmistress is available a male teacher or Headmaster can be appointed/posted. The writ court accepted this contention on the basis of provisions in the Government decision contained in letter no. 142 dated 4th February, 1989. A perusal of that letter shows that the letter contains policy guidelines for appointment and payment of salary to teachers appointed by the Managing Committee of Girls High School which was taken over under the Project High School in the year 1984- 85. In respect of recognition/approval of services of male 3 teachers appointed and working in such school some extra conditions have been imposed under paragraph-2 of the letter which includes a condition that they will not have any objection in being adjusted at some other place in view of subject and vacancy available. Such extra burden may be understandable but no provision in the said letter disqualifies a male teacher from holding the post of Headmaster or Incharge Headmaster in a Project Girls High School. That would run counter to the right of a senior teacher even though male to be normally given the duties of the In-charge Headmaster. Such right cannot be taken away unless there be specific provisions in the rules or policy validly framed for the purpose. In the present case we do not find any such provision. From various documents, particularly, from annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed in this appeal, it is evident that at least in 28 Project Girls High School male Headmasters were posted on 7-12-2010. Annexure-4 to the writ petition shows that the appellant himself was made Incharge Headmaster of this school in the year 1994. On the basis of information obtained under the 4 Right to Information Act, the appellant has alleged that at least 5 male teachers are presently posted as Incharge Headmaster in Project Girls High Schools. The law is settled that unless there is good reason, the senior most teacher in the school should be made In-charge Headmaster. For this purpose reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Mishra Vrs. L.N. Mithila University and two others reported in 1987 PLJR 838. In view of aforesaid facts and discussions, we are of the considered view that appellant deserves to be made In charge Headmaster of the school on the basis of seniority over respondent no.5. Hence, the order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the authorities to issue necessary orders in compliance of our judgment at an early date and in any case within two months. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)