IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12996 of 1996 Shambhu Narain Singh, Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. Gaura, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai at present working as Headmaster, Middle School, Railway Colony, Saharsa. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director Education, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 4. The District Education Establishment Committee through its Secretary, District Superintendent, Saharsa. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. ----------- Respondents ----------- 7 29.06.2010 Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i) To issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.10.1996 issued by Director Primary Education) vide Memo no. 2331 reverting the petitioner from the post of Headmaster as also reverting from B.A. Scale to Matric trained scale. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order contained in letter no. 1018 dated 29.4.1995 issued by Regional Deputy Director of Education Koshi Range, Saharsa written to District Superintendent of Educatin of Saharsa Directing to pay the petitioner reduced salary 2 in the scale of Matric Trained and stop the payment of salary of B.A. Trained which the petitioner is getting. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa as contained in Letter no.2313 dated 27.9.1995 whereby and whereunder the drawing and disbursing power of petitioner has been seized and the petitioner has been asked to submit the salary bill of his group of school to the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa for signature. (iv) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from the post of Head Master and B.A. Trained scale given to the petitioner.” From reading of the writ application, it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to the reversion from the post of Headmaster as also recovery of the excess payment for holding the post of Headmaster. The respondents in fact have clarified this aspect by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows:- “5. That prior filing this writ petition the petitioner had filed 3 CWJC No. 1832 of 1996 which was disposed by the Hon’ble High Court on 26.8.96 directing to Respondent No.2, Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna to pass an order examine the matter in detail in the light of the observation made aforesaid and to take a decision in accordance with the law, and this regard the petitioner was ordered to file representation before the Respondent no.2. 6. That in compliance of said order passed by Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 1832 of 1996 the Respondent no.2, had examine the case of the petitioner going through the rules and regulations and relevant papers the Respondent No.2 has passed a reasoned order on dated 30.10.1996 the requisite qualification of a Headmaster is trained graduate, whereas the petitioner was trained at the time of appointment as a Headmaster on 1.4.70 by the Managing Committee of the school, so the appointment of the petitioner was not only illegal but also it was bogus and having gone without rules and regulations, so the basis of appointment of the petitioner as an Headmaster is itself consodictory and willful exercise of power of the Managing Committee of the school. 7. That in the light of said order which was passed by the Respondent 4 No.2 in the light of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWJC No. 1832/96 the petitioner again filed this CWJC No. 12996 of 1996 for the same treatment of the disease and grievances. The claim of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster is baseless, because of the fact the petitioner was not trained graduate at the time of his appointment as a Headmaster a qualification of trained graduate is must, not only that the petitioner was never allowed to draw the salary of trained graduate (Headmaster) by the Managing Committee, to take over the school in question the District Superintendent of Education had sent his proposal to Directorate on 14.10.1979 in which the petitioner was not shown as a Headmaster in the list of teachers. 8. That the letter dated 5.2.1981 was sent by the Special Secretary to the Govt, but the name of the petitioner has not been shown as a Headmaster rather the petitioner’s name was shown as a matric untrained. Not only that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has sent to petitioner for getting training for six weeks vide his memo no. 310-60 dated 25.2.96 in that very list the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned has not been 5 shown the petitioner designased as a Headmaster. 9. that in the light of above facts and circumstances the Respondent No.2 has passed the reasoned order on dated 30.10.1996 is legal, according to law and justified. 10. That the claim of the petitioner for Headmastership has got no merit, baseless and bogus. There is a provision and a requsite qualification for the post of the Headmaster. The petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions for the appointment of Headmaster at that very times, when he was appointed so the claim of the petitioner is not justified and legal.” It has to be noted that during pendency of this writ application I.A. No. 4302 of 2010 was also filed by the petitioner, wherein a prayer was made for hearing of this application CWJC No. 5647 of 2001. The absence of any rejoinder to the counter affidavit would first of all lead to an accepted position in law that the petitioner does not have any defence to the basic contention of the respondents that he did not possess the requisite qualification 6 for the post of Headmaster and therefore, once it is found that the petitioner was not eligible to get such promotion, there would be no question of his being entitled to continue with the same. The order of reversion, therefore, was most natural and logical outcome of the ineligibility on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would find no merit in that interlocutory application where this writ application was sought to be tagged with CWJC No. 5647 of 2001 which in fact was only a consequential writ application on account of an order seeking recovery for the excess payment received by the petitioner. The moment this Court would hold that the petitioner was not entitled to hold the post of Headmaster, there would be nothing left even in the writ application and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is wholly misconceived and is hereby rejected. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is 7 dismissed. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of CWJC No. 5647 of 2001. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)