IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16094 of 2008 KUMAR RAJIV NAYAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr K.N.Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mr Angad Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr A Amanullah, SC 17 -------- 2. 14.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The Managing Committee of Harprasad Das Jain School, Bhojpur at Arrah, a recognized minority School, published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment on the post of Headmaster in the School. The petitioner also applied. He was selected by the Managing Committee on 15.1.2008 and letter of appointment issued. Respondent no. 7 then filed an application before the Regional Deputy Director of Education questioning the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he allegedly did not fulfill the requirement of holding 12 years of teaching experience on a higher scale as he had not been granted the higher pay scale. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.9.2008 itself notices the submission of respondent no. 7 that he did not fulfill the qualification for appointment as Principal. None other questions the appointment of the petitioner. The Regional Deputy Director of Education was not competent to pass the impugned order and which power was vested in the Director Secondary Education only. Reliance is placed on the Statutory Order No. 34738-39 dated 30.12.1985 2 issued under the Bihar Non Government Secondary School (Management and Takeover) Rules 1981 for the same. Counsel for the State urged that the petitioner does not hold the qualifications of 12 years of teaching experience on a higher pay scale. The impugned order further states that publication of advertisement inviting application was bad in view of government instruction that the post of Headmaster was to be filled first by consideration of candidates already in the college for promotion. This Court does not consider it necessary for the present decision to take notice of the recitals in the impugned order itself that the Managing Committee had already sent a proposal to the State Government for grant of higher scale to the petitioner and which was pending consideration with the authorities themselves. Respondent no. 7 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, as mentioned in the impugned order, himself acknowledges that he was not competent to apply and to be considered for the post of Headmaster. This Court considers the same as sufficient justification not to issue notice to him. Selection and appointment has been made after advertisement which undoubtedly is the best legal method to recruit the best candidate. The respondent no. 7 therefore, as a busy body, has no locus to challenge the appointment of the petitioner. The Regional Deputy Director of Education holds that one Dr. Amal Kumar Jain was competent to be appointed. The person whose 3 cause the Regional Deputy Director of Education seeks to espouse is not complaining. The statutory order dated 30.12.1985 relied upon by the petitioner inter alia states, on the issue of appointment of Principal, that the Director (Secondary Education) was alone competent to decide the issue. This Court therefore is satisfied that whether it be lack of locus on part of respondent no. 7 or the lack of jurisdiction on part of Regional Deputy Director of Education , the order is clearly not sustainable. The order dated 18.9.2008 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)