IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10299 of 2008 1. SHIVJATAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH, VILL.+P.O.-PURAON, P.S.-KARPI, DISTRICT- ARWAL (HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAZIPUR, JEHANABAD. 2. RAM PRAVESH SINGH, S/O LATE RAMBILASH SINGH, VILL.+P.O.-BELAGANJ, P.S.-BELAGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA (HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAKDUMPUR, JEHANABAD). 3. MAHENDRA NARAYAN, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SHARMA, VILLAGE-DEOGHARA, P.O.-DHANGAMA, P.S.-KAKO, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD (HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, KAJPA, JEHANABAD). 4. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, LATE GAYA PRASAD SINGH, SHRI KRISHNA MARKET, NEW AREA NISHAR ROAD, GAYA, (HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, MUTHER, JEHANABAD). 5. TRIPTI SINGH, S/O LATE SHRI ARJUN SINGH, VILLAGE-PHAKHARPUR, P.O.-PHAKHARPUR, P.S.- ARWAL, DISTRICT-ARWAL (HEADMASTER, MURLIDHAR MIDDLE SCHOOL, JEHANABAD). 6. BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE BALKESHWAR SINGH, VILLAGE+P.O.-BELAWAN, P.S.- MEHANDIA, DISTRICT-ARWAL (HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAYEE, KAKO, JEHANABAD). …………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CABINET SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JEHANABAD. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The six petitioners are 2 Headmasters of different schools. They have challenged a resolution of the Department of Human Resources Development, contained in memo no.1962 dated 27.05.2008 (Annexure- 1), by which, instead of Headmasters, now the Block Education Extension Officers (B.E.E.Os) and in their absence the Block Development Officers (B.D.Os) have been made Drawing and Disbursing Officers in respect of payment of salary etc. to the Headmasters and teachers of the schools. Annexure-1 shows that the said officers have been empowered to prepare pay bills of the teachers and Headmasters of the school on the basis of absentee reports and last pay certificates issued by the Headmasters for the purposes of forwarding the same to the treasury. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far back as in 1981, vide annexure-2, the Headmasters were made Drawing and Disbursing Officers in the respective schools. He also submits that, that was a conscious decision of the Department after considering the various aspects of the matter. However, the same is 3 being changed now by the Department for no rhyme or reason. He also submits that the B.E.E.O. is an officer drawing lesser pay scale than the Headmasters. Hence, it is not legal to authorize him to prepare the pay bills of the Headmasters. After going through Annexure-1 and 2, this Court finds that it is a just change of arrangement by the Department. The B.E.E.O. or the B.D.O. have not been given any control in respect of the service conditions of the teachers or the Headmasters. Since, apparently, this arrangement made by Annexure-1 is only a procedural matter, this Court finds that no right of the petitioners stand infringed so as to make them entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for grant of any relief to them. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)