IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9829 of 2009 PAWAN KUMAR SON OF YUGAL SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARGAN, P.S. BELA DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI. 5. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NARGAN NORTH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AT VILLAGE AND P.O. NARGAN, P.S. BELA BLOCK PARIHAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 6. RENU DEVI WIFE OF SASHI BHUSAN RAVI 7. RAM PRIT PRASAD SON OF LATGE MUKHLAL SAH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARGAN, BHAYA PARIHAR DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ----------- 6 24/01/2011 Petitioner admittedly is an un-trained teacher who came to be appointed as such in the process of recruitment so initiated in the year 2003. It so happened that the Principal of the school in question where the petitioner was posted was transferred from that school and petitioner was asked to officiate as the Incharge Headmaster in the background that he was supposed to be the senior most teacher of the school. This arrangement continued for quite a number of years till two trained teachers came to be posted in the same - 2 - school and thereafter the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi issued an office order contained in annexure-3 dated 2.6.2009 by virtue of which Smt. Renu Ravi, a trained teacher was declared to be senior and put incharge of the school. Annexure-3, therefore, came to be challenged in this writ application. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that a person appointed at a much later date, even though trained, cannot be put over the head of the petitioner and he should be allowed to continue as incharge Headmaster by virtue of his experience and the length of service he had rendered and there was no occasion to interfere with the arrangement. He also submits that the District Superintendent of Education had no business to issue the said letter because the matter relates to the Panchayat and it is the Panchayat Samiti who was to decide as to who should be the incharge Headmaster. Notice had been issued. Counter affidavit has not only been filed on behalf of the official respondents but also on behalf of the private respondent nos. 6 and 7. The stand of the respondents is that an un-trained teacher - 3 - has no status to claim seniority by virtue of number of years he or she may have put in because all through trained teachers enjoy higher status in terms of salary and other perks and privileges vis-à-vis un-trained teachers. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to a resolution of a meeting of the Regional Directors which was held in this regard where it has been categorically recorded that trained teachers shall always rank higher than un-trained teachers. It is an accepted position that there are no settled rules or notification in this regard but the service conditions and the working conditions right through in the State have weighed in favour of trained teachers. Petitioner was any way appointed as a stop-gap arrangement and not on a substantive basis as there was no trained teacher available in the school at the relevant time. So long as trained teachers were not posted, petitioner enjoyed the un-expected wind fall on which he had no right. He has to make way for a trained teacher who has now joined and has to be declared as senior to the petitioner and also given charge of the school in question by virtue of better qualification and policy as - 4 - such. In totality, therefore, the Court has difficulty in interfering with the impugned order contained in annexure-3 because annexure-3 has been issued in light of the prevalent service condition of such teachers and not for any other reason which has been urged at the Bar by the learned counsel. No interference, therefore, is required in this writ application with regard to annexure- 3. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)