IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4553 of 2006 Smt.Baby Singh, wife of Akshay Kumar Singh, R/o village + post Rampur Daud, P.S. Kuchaikote, District – Gopalganj. At present working as Incharge Head Mistress, Mana Nagina Rai Project Girls High School, Kuchaikote, Gopalganj. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapara 5. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj. 6. Sri Ram Narayan Singh, Son of Late Thakur Singh, Asst. Teacher, Nanan Nagina Rai Project Girls High School, Kuchaikote, Gopalganj ….. Respondents ----------- 6 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Respondent no. 6. Petitioner challenges the order dated 11.3.2006 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra, whereby the respondent no. 6 being the senior most teacher of the school has been authorized to work as the Incharge Headmaster of the concerned school. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, earlier, one Samshad Ali was working as Incharge Headmaster and an inquiry was held upon the 2 complaints filed. Thereafter, the authority concerned has directed the petitioner to work as Incharge Headmistress of the school vide order dated 10.11.1997, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 4. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 represented against her authorization to work as Incharge Headmistress. However, after consideration of the cases of both the parties, the petitioner was again authorized to work as Incharge Headmistress. Suddenly by office order dated 11.3.2006 as contained in Annexure 1, the respondent no. 6 has been authorized to work as Incharge Headmaster on the basis of his seniority and as per the report dated 13.2.2006 of the District Education Officer, Gopalganj, and also upon the further direction of the Director of Education. Learned counsel submits that once a decision was taken by issuing Annexure 9, the same could not have been changed without having a response from this petitioner. Thus, the order is in the teeth of the principle of natural justice. Secondly, it is submitted that since the petitioner has moved before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5294 of 1999, which was disposed of by order dated 25.10.2000 and also 3 M.J.C. 2251 of 2004 (contempt), for non compliance of the aforesaid order was filed, the petitioner is being victimized by dis-lodging her and authorizing the respondent no. 6 as Incharge Headmaster of the concerned school. It is also submitted that the concerned school being Project Girls High School, only a lady could have been appointed or given charge as Headmistress of this school. A male teacher could not have been made Incharge Headmaster. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision of the Government as contained in letter No. 12/Va. 4 – 18/85 dated 2.11.1985 and similar letter dated 4.2.1989. Thus, it is contended that even assuming the respondent no. 6 to be senior , he could not have been made Incharge Headmaster in view of the aforesaid policy decision of the Government. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well as respondent no. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the order as contained in Annexure 9 was passed by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj, on 4.12.2004 ignoring Annexure B, which is communication by the 4 Director (Secondary Education), Bihar issued to all the District Education Officers of the State. According to the aforesaid letter the District Education Officers were directed to consider the seniority of the teachers while appointing or authorizing the teachers as Incharge Headmaster or Headmistress on the vacant post of Headmaster. After passing of the order dated 4.12.2004, a letter was written by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education to the concerned District Education Officer on 18.7.2005 to make inquiry and submit a report as to what is the basis of appointing the petitioner as Incharge Headmistress. Thereafter, it is submitted, that a report was sent to the Deputy Director concerned and upon the basis of the report, the Director has written to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division that the respondent no. 6 appears to be the senior most teacher in the school and the Regional Deputy Director was requested to again scrutinize the matter and appoint the senior most teacher as Incharge Headmaster. It is submitted that on the basis of such report as well as direction, the impugned order as contained in Annexure 5 1 has been passed. Learned counsel also drew attention of this Court towards Annexures E and F to his counter affidavit, which according to him is also attached with the report of the District Education Officer concerned, to show that though it is written in the Annexure E that the services of the incumbents would be counted from 1.1.1989, which is the date of their confirmation, the respondent no. 6, having been appointed on 3.1.1982 i.e., prior to the 3.1.1987 which is the date of appointment of the petitioner, would be obviously senior than the petitioner. Apart from that, it is submitted that respondent no. 6 has been appointed as a trained graduate teacher, which is reflected from his qualification in Annexure E, wherein petitioner was appointed as untrained, which is reflected from Annexure F. Thus, the respondent no. 6 was given a higher scale, that is the scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000/- , whereas the petitioner was given pay scale of Rs. 4000 – 6000/- It has also been pointed out that after the direction of the Government as contained in letter dated 2.11.1985, a subsequent decision was taken by the State Government as contained in the letter dated 6 4.2.1989 to the effect that a male teacher in a Project Girls School would only be appointed in case there is no availability of the eligible female teacher of the subject and the male teacher could only be appointed against the sanctioned post. Thus, a male teacher could have been appointed in aforesaid circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither challenged the appointment of the respondent no. 6 nor is she aggrieved by the higher scale having been given to him. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it has been urged that from the records and admitted facts itself, since the respondent no. 6 is the senior most and trained teacher of the school, would only be entitled to be given charge of the Incharge Headmaster. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 has also supported the contention raised on behalf of the State. It has been urged that from the perusal of Annexure G/2 of the counter affidavit of the State, it would be clear that petitioner is at third position in seniority after one of Smt. Vidya Rai and, thus, her claim is without any basis. 7 I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the respondents. For succeeding in this writ application the petitioner will have to show that some injustice had been done to her and she is highly prejudiced by the order impugned. However, the petitioner has never challenged either the appointment or the higher pay scale being given to the respondent no. 6 and from the documents, specially Annexure 3, it is apparent that the petitioner’s date of appointment is 3.1.1987, whereas, that of the respondent no. 6 is 3.1.1982. It is also apparent that the respondent no. 6 is a trained graduate teacher getting higher salary , which has never been challenged by the petitioner. Thus, from the close scrutiny of the records of this case, it appears that respondent no. 6 is definitely senior than the petitioner and is also higher in qualification being trained one and in between respondent no. 6 and the petitioner the another Smt. Vidya Rai is there at second position, who was appointed on 4.1.1982, that is the prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, since the petitioner could not show any 8 illegality in the decision taken by issuance of impugned order, this application fails. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)