IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5982 of 1998 Harihar Prasad Singh, son of Shri Babulal Singh, Assistant Teacher, Harsit High School, Akhtiarpur, Khajuri, P.S. Sarairanjan, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director cum Special Secretary, (Secondary Education), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Director, Secondary Education cum Additional Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Department of Human Resources, Budha Marg, Patna 5. The District Education Officer, Samastipur 6. Ram Lagan Singh, son of name not known, Acting Headmaster, Harsit High School, Akhtiarpur Khajuri, P.S. Sarairanjan, District Samastipur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 6. 30.8.2011 Having heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 as also the counsel for the State this Court would not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner for being made Founder Headmaster of Harsit High School, Akhtiarpur in the District of Samastipur, inasmuch as the authority has come to a clear finding that the petitioner in terms of Circular No. 510 dated 20.11.1981 did not possess the minimum requisite of seven years experience on the post of Assistant Teacher in a recognized school by Madhyamik Shiksha Board. Mr. Singh, however, would place reliance on a communication of the District Education Officer, Samastipur dated 11.6.1976 wherein it has been mentioned that the total experience 2 of the petitioner was around 18 years 5 months and 10 days and as such, his services ought to have been approved as the Headmaster of the school. This Court, however, would find that first of all the period of 11 years mentioned in the said letter of the D.E.O., Samastipur dated 11.6.1976 does not even mention that the petitioner had acquired such experience in a High School recognized by the then Secondary Education Board. That apart the recognition given to the school in question preceded by permission for establishment by itself could not make the petitioner entitled for becoming Headmaster of the school in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the said school received the permission for establishment on 8.5.1975 which was followed by permanent recognition by Madhyamik Shiksha Board only on 24.2.1976. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Secretary to the Education Department in the impugned order dated 6.7.1998 (Annexure 9) reading as follows: ^^nwljs izR;k'kh Jh gfjgj izlkn flag Jh iz/kkuk/;kid in ij fu;qfDr dh vgRrkZ ugha j[krs gSA uo izLohd`r fo|ky; esa mUghas f'k{kdksa dh LFkk;h iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij ekU;rk fn;s tkus dk izko/kku gS tks fo|ky; dh izLohd`r dh frfFk dks 10 o"kksZa ls vf/kd dk f'k{k.k vuqHko j[krs FksA vU; fo|ky; esa tgka blls de f'k{k.k vuqHko okys f'k{kd dk;Zjr Fks ogka ij vk;ksx ds iSuy ls fu;qDr iz/kkuk/;kid ds inLFkkiu dh O;oLFkk dh xbZA mi;qZDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd iz/kkuk/;kid in ij izksUufr ds fy, fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr dh frfFk dh Jh gfjgj izlkn flag vFkok Jh jkeyxu flag nksuksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh visf{kr f'k{k.k vuqHko izkIr ugha gSA vr% iz/kkuk/;kid in ij buesa ls fdlh dh lsok dh ekU;rk fn;s tkus dk vkSfpR; ugha gSA** 3 does not suffer from any error either on fact or in law. As a matter of fact when the schools were taken over on 2.10.1980 a situation had arisen that the vacant post of Headmaster in such taken over schools had to be filled up by treating them as unit, inasmuch as there was no service condition laid down by the Government and consequently the State Government by Circular No. 510 dated 20.11.1981 had laid down pre-requisite qualification for filling up the post of Headmaster by treating the school as unit. It would thus be clear that the petitioner on his own showing had not completed the requisite minimum period as prescribed in the aforesaid circular No. 510 dated 20.11.1981 and as such, the authority was fully justified in rejecting his case vis-à- vis the case of respondent no.6 by holding that neither of the two were qualified to be made founder Headmaster. This Court, however, must notice an ancillary submission made by Mr. Singh as with regard to scope and applicability of Section 63 of the Bihar Madhyamik Shiksha Board Act, 1976. In the considered opinion of this Court the schools were taken over in terms of 1981 Act and the circulars also were issued in terms of section 15 thereof, there would be no question of now going into the applicability of section 63 which would in no way improve upon the admitted facts of the case of the 4 petitioner when he as a matter of fact did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Headmaster. It has to be also kept in mind that if the said permanent post of Headmaster could not be filled up by treating it as a unit till 9.6.1983, the same in view of Sewa Sarta Niyamawali, 1983 had to be filled up from amongst the senior most teacher of the State cadre. At this stage this Court must also note the submission of Mrs. Pushpa Sinha appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 that respondent no.6 was allowed to function as an In-charge Headmaster in the school and therefore, respondent no.6 would be deemed to be permanent Headmaster of the School. As a matter of fact this Court had never held respondent no.6 to be permanent Headmaster of the School as would be apparent from the order dated 9.9.1981 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 2402/1981, wherein the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 19.6.1981, disapproving the case of both the petitioner and respondent no.6 for the post of permanent Headmaster, had been rejected on account of their lack of prescribed experience. This Court in the judgment dated 9.9.1981 in C.W.J.C. No. 2402/1981 had only held respondent no.6 should be allowed to function as the Acting Headmaster of the School, inasmuch as it was also clarified therein that if subsequently it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for being made permanent Headmaster of the school he would be reverted back as 5 In-charge Headmaster. In the impugned order the authority has come to a conclusion that neither the petitioner nor respondent no.6 were fulfilling the criteria for being made permanent Headmaster and since respondent no.6 has not assailed the said order, he cannot now seek a declaration in this writ application that he had become permanent Headmaster of the school. He may have continued as an In-charge Headmaster till the date of his retirement but that will not mean that this Court had held him earlier entitled for being made permanent Headmaster. In any event the impugned order has been passed affecting the interest of both the petitioner and respondent no.6 and respondent no.6 has not challenged the same and therefore he cannot now get any clarification in a writ application filed by the petitioner confined to his claim for being declared permanent Headmaster. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/