IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4536 of 2009 BRAJENDRA KUMAR RAI son of late Krishna Deo Rai resident of Village & P.O. Semaria P.S.Nautan District Siwan. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2.The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources & Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Disitrict Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 4.The Regional Education Officer Mairwah. 5.The Block Education Officer, Mairwah 6.The Block Education Officer Nautan. 7.Sri Rajendra Rai, father’s name not known to the petitioner. Physical Trained Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Semari-1, Mairwah. ----------- 4 3.7.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel appearing for respondent no.7. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order contained in Memo no.2506 Siwan dated 11.11.2008 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Siwan whereby respondent no.7 Rajendra Rai has been made in-charge Headmaster of Up- graded Middle School Semaria-1, Mairwah in place of this petitioner. Further prayer is for quashing the consequential order contained in Memo no.60/ Nautan dated 14.2.2009 issued under the signature of Block Education Officer, Nautan directing the petitioner to hand over complete charge of the school to respondent no.7. Petitioner was initially engaged as panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 7.3.2003 for eleven months which was extended by subsequent orders. Since 1.7,2006 the petitioner was working as Panchayat Siksha Mitra. He was absorved as Panchayat teacher in 2 compliance of the provisions under Rule 20 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rule 2006. Rule 20 being the provision that who so ever were working as Panchayat Siksha Mitra on 1.7.2006 shall be deemed to be appointed/employed as Panchayat Teacher. Accordingly petitioner was also deemed to be appointed as Panchayat teacher with effect from 1.7.2006. The school in which the petitioner was working i.e. Government Primary School, Simari was up-graded and became Middle School. Petitioner’s case is that he was made Incharge Headmaster of Up-graded Middle School and continuing on the post till the date the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. By this order the respondent no.7 was appointed as Incharge Headmaster in compliance of the order of the District Superintendent of Education. The Block Edcation Officer vide order contained in Annexure-2 directed the petitioner to hand over charge to respondent no.7. The point raised by the petitioner for consideration is that there being no specific provision under the rule for deciding seniority of teachers in that case as being the settled principle of law, the date of entry in the cadre should be the deciding factor for deciding seniority. Admittedly the petitioner joined the cadre of Assistant Teacher on 1.7.2006 and respondent no.7 joined on 2.4.2007. In the given circumstances the petitioner being the senior most teacher in the school was directed to function as Incharge Headmaster. 3 Respondent no.7 had entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It has been submitted by counsel for the respondent no.7 that the petitioner is an untrained teacher and respondent no.7 was appointed as trained teacher. A decision has been taken at the State level Meeting of Regional Deputy Directors of Division and District Superintendent of Education in the meeting held on 10.2.2009 that the trained teachers will be considered as senior to untrained teachers. In the light of this resolution there is no doubt that the respondent no.7 is senior to writ petitioner and entitled for being appointed as Incharge Headmaster. Similar statement has been made on behalf of the State in its counter affidavit. On consideration of the pleadings and submission made by the counsel I find that Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the State and Annexure-7/C annexed with the counter affidavit of respondent no.7 being the minutes of the meeting dated 10.2.2009 is simply an administrative decision. Any administrative decision cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The impugned order was issued on 11.11.2008 and till that date no rule was there for deciding that untrained teachers will be deemed to be junior to the trained teachers. Till the date of issuance of the impugned order there being no such rule/resolution, the factor for deciding the seniority could have been the date of entry in the cadre. In that view the petitioner who joined the cadre of Assistant Teacher on 1.7.2006 be deemed senior to respondent no.7. Accordingly I do not find that the impugned order 4 was passed considering the seniority of respondent no.7, the petitioner in all respect was senior to respondent no.7 on 11.11.2008 on account of his seniority, he was entitled for being appointed as Headmaster./ Only after issuance of the impugned order he has discharged his duty as In-charge Headmaster. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and this application is allowed. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)