IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1086 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Deep Narayan Yadav, resident of village and post office Sukhashan, Via Gwalpara, Police Station Murliganj, District Madhepura--------------------------------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Katihar 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Falka, District Katihar 6.Block Development Officer, Falka, District Katihar 7.Area Education Officer, Barari, Katihar 8.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Govindpur, Falka Block, District Katihar 9.The Panchayat Sachiv, Raj Govindpur, Falka Block, District Katihar 10.Shailendra Kumar Sarovar @ Shailendra Mandal, son of late Bhagwat Mandal, resident of village Bairiya, Police Station Tikapatti, District Purnea------------------------------------------------------respondents ----------- 2. 01.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Office Order dated 13.12.2010 issued by the Block Education Officer, Falka and the letter dated 4.1.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar by which the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of the school to the respondent No.10 as In-charge Headmaster. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to cancel the appointment of respondent No.10 in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. 2 It appears from the statement made in the writ petition that earlier the respondent No.10, who is also a Panchayat Teacher, was posted as In-charge Headmaster of the school. However, on account of involvement in criminal case he was sent to jail on 1.6.2007, from which he was subsequently released on 16.12.2008. The petitioner joined the school on 6.7.2007 and being the only teacher on that date he was given the charge of In-charge Headmaster. Thereafter the impugned order has been passed directing him to handover the charge to respondent No.10 on the ground that respondent No.10 was a trained teacher whereas the petitioner was an untrained teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.10 having been sent to jail in N.D.P.S. case the petitioner should not be disturbed in his position as In-charge Headmaster. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the respondent No.10 having been absent for more than three months in terms of Rule 15(2) of the 2006 Rules his service should be terminated. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent No.10 being a trained teacher has rightly been directed to be made In-charge Headmaster of the school in terms of the Service Rules and it cannot be said that there is infirmity in the 3 order passed by the respondent authority. It is urged that the pendency of criminal case cannot change the position under the Service Rules and he would be entitled to be the In-charge Headmaster on the ground of being a trained teacher in preference to the petitioner being an untrained teacher. This Court finds some force in the submission of learned counsel for the State. The issue of pendency of criminal case becomes wholly irrelevant if the respondent No.10 has been allowed to join his service. However, any action under Rule 15(2) of the 2006 Rules for the termination of his appointment can also be of little avail so far as the petitioner is concerned, so long as the services of the respondent No.10 are not actually terminated, after complying with the Rules and Constitutional Principles in the matter of termination of appointment. In the above circumstances, the impugned order does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/