IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14718 of 2004 Sri Pratap Narain Singh, son of late Bishwanath Singh, resident of Village – Deosia, P O – Deosia, P S – Lar, District – Deoria (Uttar Pradesh), at present Drona Charya High School, Done, Siwan - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The District Education Officer, Saran (Chapra) - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr Advocate With Mr Onkar Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : M/s A Amanullah, G A 4 & Arun Kumar Prasad, AC to GA 4 *** 8 02.05.2011 The writ petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. His grievance primarily is that while Teachers of other Government take over schools have been given seniority and continuity of service from the date of establishment of schools notwithstanding subsequent take over, petitioner has been denied the same. Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition draws attention of this Court to Annexure-9. Annexure-9 is the order of the District Education Officer based on the directions of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar wherein services of a set of Teachers have been accepted from the date of establishment of school though the take over was much later. So far as petitioner is concerned, by Annexure-2, it is evident that his continuity or recognition is from the date of take over though the date of establishment of school is earlier. Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that prior to 1974, the concept that prevailed was of full or partial recognition of a school. After the ordinances regulating the 2 establishment of the schools came, schools needed prior permission to establish. Accordingly, in both cases, that is recognition or establishment, the schools could not be there without supporting staff. Thus, grant of recognition or permission to establish presupposes infrastructural availability including teaching staff. Therefore, rightly when the schools were taken over in 1982, the period in between the establishment of school to the take over was taken into account for continuity of service and seniority. This was wrongly denied to the petitioner. On behalf of State, it is submitted that State, as a policy decision, appears to have decided to give continuity and/or seniority only from the date of take over. Annexure-9 does not support this. In my view, the stand of the State that the seniority and continuity is to be granted from the take over date that is 1992 were to be accepted which would lead to anomalous results. For example, if a school was permitted to be established in 1978 with the requisite staff, it was then taken over in 1982 and comparing it with the school that was permitted to be established in 1980 and taken over in 1982, the seniority and continuity of the Teachers of both the schools cannot be from the date of take over in 1982 washing away the earlier service. That would make the policy itself arbitrary. In my view, Annexure-9 is the correct interpretation as done at the instance of the Director, Secondary Education himself where seniority and continuity would be continued from the date of permission to establish the School with two increments and what has been granted to the petitioner by Annexure-2 is not correct as his seniority and continuity is being determined from the date of take over of the school irrespective of his 3 initial appointment consequent to permission to establish the school. In my view, Annexure-2, thus, cannot be supported and is not correct. The petitioner would be entitled to determination of seniority from 30.10.1980 and his salary upon take over would be fixed by giving two increments on the basic grade with effect from 1982. With these observations and directions, Annexure-2 is quashed and/or modified to the aforesaid extent with consequential benefits. The writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)