IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2782 of 2009 RADHE SHYAM CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE MAHESHWAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAGMA, BALBHADRAPUR, P.S. – SAKATPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA …………….. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE BIHAR STATE SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “THE BOARD”). 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI SHANKAR SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, LAGMA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, P.S. – SAKATPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA 4. SHRI SHIV SHANKAR CHOUDHARY, SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI SHANKAR SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, LAGMA, DARBHANGA, P.S. – SAKATPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA 5. SMT SIYA DEVI, CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI SHANKAR SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, LAGMA, DARBHANGA, P.S. – SAKATPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA 6. CHANDRA MOHAN THAKUR, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AT PRESENT WORKING AS HEADMASTER OF SHRI SHANKAR SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, LAGMA, DARBHANGA, P.S. – SAKATPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA ................... RESPONDENTS ----------- 03. …../07/2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 147, dated 25.08.2008, whereby appeal no. 2 of 2007, preferred before Director, Secondary Education, has been dismissed under the Orders of Special Director, Secondary Education. Further prayer is for quashing of order, contained in Memo No. 5173, dated 21.12.2006, whereby Respondent No. 6 has been appointed as 2 Headmaster of Shri Shankar Sanskrit High School, Lagma, Darbhanga, P.S. – Sakatpur, District – Darbhanga, considering him as senior most Teacher in the School. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to promote him as the Headmaster of the School and also declare the constitution of Managing Committee of Shri Shankar Sanskrit High School, Lagma, Darbhanga, P.S. – Sakatpur, District – Darbhanga, dated 10.12.2006, contrary to provisions under Bihar Sanskrit Teachers Service Conditions Rules, 1976. Petitioner claims himself to be senior to Respondent No. 6 on account of his date of appointment. He was appointed by the Managing Committee of Scholl as Assistant Teacher on 02.07.1975. Subsequent to that in the year 1983, he passed “Shastri”. He passed “Sahityacharya” Examination in the year 1991 and became trained in the year 1995. Respondent No. 6 was appointed on 11.07.1983 as an Assistant Teacher, possessing the qualification of “Vyakarnacharya”. The Government of Bihar through its Governmental Resolution No. I/C 9-96/76 Ed-2261, dated 18th of October, 1976 laid down conditions for 3 granting recognition to the Non-government Sanskrit Educational Institution. In terms of the conditions, number of minimum teaching staff, their eligibilities, qualification have been fixed. The number of teaching staff and their eligible qualification in the Secondary Sanskrit School as per this Resolution are as follows: “In a Secondary School, number of teaching staff will be 07; minimum qualification for Headmaster will be “Acharya” and he will be paid salary in the selection grade; the number of trained Graduate Assistant Teacher will be 03, who will be put in B- Category; Assistant Teachers in C-category, who are simply graduate, but not trained, will be 03. As per this resolution, the minimum eligibility qualification to enter into the Secondary School Service, as a teaching staff is graduate, who will be put in Category – C. For Category B, minimum qualification will be “Acharya”, graduate trained.” Considering the qualification of the petitioner at the time of his appointment, it is apparent that he did not posses even the minimum qualification, as such he was appointed in the minimum scale of Rs. 680- 965/-. Respondent No. 6, though appointed subsequent to the petitioner, possessed “Vyakarnacharya” degree, 4 as such he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Category-B in the pay-scale of Rs. 850-1360/-. This was the reason that when the Headmaster of the Sanskrit School superannuated on 31.01.2001, Respondent No. 6, namely, Chandra Mohan Thakur was made In-charge Headmaster of the School. One Vishnu Kant Chaudhary challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Headmaster by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1969 of 2004, but before this Writ Application could have been decided, Vishnu Kant Chaudhary retired and the Writ Application became infructuous. In this very Writ Application, petitioner had intervened by filing I. A. No. 4546 of 2006, which was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances before appropriate forum. Petitioner preferred appeal. That has been dismissed by the impugned order, which is under challenge in this Writ Application. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 has submitted that the minimum qualification for the post of Headmaster in Sanskrit High School as per rule 11 of Chapter 3 of Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit High School (Service Condition) Rules, 1976 is “Acharya Degree” with 2nd Class and 10 years teaching 5 experience in any recognized School or High school. Rule 10 of the said Service Conditions Rules states that minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher must be “Acharya” and Graduate or “Navin Shastri” with English for the modern subjects. Petitioner enhanced his qualification as “Acharya”, subsequently at the time of his appointment only qualification, he possessed was Graduate “Navin Shastri”, which is not the requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of Headmaster. Petitioner has also alleged that Respondent No. 6 was made In-charge Headmaster by the Managing Committee, which had been constituted illegally, and approval was given only by Chairman of the Board, who is not empowered to pass any order regarding constitution or cancellation of any Managing Committee. This is the power vested in the Board. Since all the members of the Managing Committee are relatives of Respondent No. 6, as such constitution of new Managing Committee has been made in violation of 1976 Rules. This illegally constituted Managing Committee appointed Respondent No. 6 as In-charge Headmaster of the School as such illegality is apparent in the promotion of Respondent No. 6 6 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed Counter Affidavit stating that the constitution of Managing Committee was in accordance with law and its constitution was approved by the Chairman of the Board on 25.10.2006 and later on approved by the Board also. The duly and validly constituted Managing Committee has promoted the Respondent No. 6 on the post of Headmaster of the School, which has also been approved by the Chairman of the Board vide Order dated 25.12.2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case, objections raised by the petitioner, challenging the constitution of the Managing Committee has got no substance. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Special Director on consideration of each and every fact and circumstance of the case and giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Headmaster, as he possessed qualification for being promoted to the post of Headmaster. The Writ petitioner passed his “Acharya” examination in the year 1991 on the other hand the Respondent No. 6 was appointed on 11.07.1983 having “Vyakaranacharya” degree. Since seniority can not be considered simply on 7 the basis of date of appointment of an employee but acquisitions of qualification, earlier to earlier appointed employee, is also one of the deciding for consideration of seniority. A person subsequently appointed with higher qualification, than the person appointed earlier with lesser qualification, will be deemed to be senior. Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 were appointed in two different categories. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in „C‟ Category. On the other hand Respondent No. 6 with a higher qualification was appointed as Assistant Teacher in „B‟ Category, in a higher scale of pay. Since the petitioner and Respondent No. 6 were appointed into two different category of post, their seniority is not comparable. Respondent No. 6 was rightly considered senior to the petitioner and promoted to the post of Headmaster. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the Respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Headmaster. Accordingly, this Writ Application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)