IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11917 of 2003 1. UMESHWAR MISHRA S/o Late Ram Surat Mishra, resident of village Jhapaha, Majhauliya, P.O. Jhapaha, Ahiyapur, Anchal Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Jarang Kuer tol, Anchal Gaighat, P.S. Gaighat, Dist. Muzaffarpur. 2. Arun Kumar Singh S/o late Ram Deo Singh, resident of village and P.O. Tengraha, P.S. Meenapur, Distt. Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the “Head Master” in Govt. Primary School, Sakarwara, Sabik, Anchal and P.S. Gaighat, Distt. Muzaffarpur. 3. Ram Niwash Singh s/o Shri Ratneshwar Prasad singh, resident of village and P.O. Bhadai, P.S. Hathauri, Anchal Aurai, Distt. Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the Asstt. Teacher in the Govt. Middle School Yajuar, Anchal and P.S. Katara, distt. Muzaffarpur. 4. Satis Kumar Singh s/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village and P.O. Narma, P.S. Hathauri, Anchal Bochaha, Dist. Muzaffarpur, at present posted and working as the Asstt. Teacher in the Govt. Mushhar Primary School, Jarang Addapokhar, P.O. Jarang, Anchal Gaighat, Distt. Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director (Primary) Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna-15. 3. The Collector Cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee (D.E.E.C.), Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Development Commissioner (D.D.C. Muzaffarpur), Muzaffarpur. 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (R.D.D.E.), Muzaffarpur. 6. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Muzaffarpur. ----------- 3 24.09.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties as also perusing the materials on record, this Court must hold that the impugned order passed by the authorities for recovery of salary from the petitioners for the period of strike is absolutely justified, inasmuch as, their solitary defence that they were deputed in the office of the Area Education Officer has been rightly rejected by the District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Muzaffarpur and its affirmance in appeal by the Commissioner of Tirhut Division. The petitioners are the teachers of elementary Schools and their direct controlling authority is none else but the District 2 Superintendent of Education and therefore any order of deputation could not have been passed by any other authority, save and except, the D.S.E. himself the District Superintendent of Education. The so called plea of deputation developed by the petitioners on the basis of the order of deputation issued by the Area Education Officer itself is wholly unsustainable. Such Area Education Officer infact had no power to issue order of deputation of the petitioners who were teachers in the Schools and were to perform their duty in their School. The office of the Area Education Officer is one meant for the purpose of supervising the Schools under the control of the District Superintendent of Education and such Area Education Officer has not been delegated power of transfer and posting of teachers which under the statutory Rules has been vested only in the District Education Establishment Committee of which D.S.E. is the member secretary. That being so, the solitary defence of the petitioners on the basis of such perfunctory order was rightly rejected by D.S.E. The appellate order has also affirmed the order of D.S.E. and as such this Court does not find any error in the two impugned orders. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on an order of this Court dated 21.6.2005 in C.W.J.C. No.12070 of 2003 is also wholly misplaced. In that case the petitioner Renu Kumari, a teacher of the School, had undergone training prior to commencement of the strike and after conclusion of the training 3 she had returned on duty and as the strike was continuing she had immediately reported her joining in the office of the District Superintendent of Education. There was no order of deputation issued in her case issued by the Area Education officer which is clear from the reading of the text of the order which is Annexure- 10 to the writ application. Consequently, whatever has been held in the case Renu Kumari, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case of these four petitioners. In this regard counsel for the State seems to be correct that cases similar to the petitioners, in fact, has been dismissed by this Court as would be apparent from the order dated 24.2.2003 in C.W.J.C. No.14358 of 2002, wherein similar defence of deputation in the office of the Area Education Officer was not accepted by this Court. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)