Letters Patent Appeal No.908 OF 2000 ******* Against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2000 Passed in Civil Review no.104 of 1997. ******* BASUKI NATH PATHAK-----------------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------Respondents ******* For the Appellant : M/s K.N. Gupta & Satyendra Krishna Prasad For the State : M/s Anil Kumar, GP XI, Amrendra Kumar & Narendra Kumar, JCs For Respondent No.5 : M/s Dr. M.P. Shukla, Subodh Chandra Jha & Pankaj Kr. Pankaj. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, JJ. On a direction by the Board ,the School in question became obliged to supply the vacancy in the post of Headmaster as had occurred in the School. Liberty was granted to 2 the School to supply such vacancy through direct recruitment or by promotion. The School gave promotion to the appellant. The private respondent in the present appeal challenged such appointment by filing a statutory appeal. In the appeal the private respondent contended that he was senior to the appellant and, accordingly, the vacancy in the post of Headmaster by promotion could not be supplied by the appellant ignoring him. This contention was accepted by the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the appellant came before this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the said decision of the appellate authority. The Court found that the decision of the appellate authority declaring the private respondent senior to the appellant is erroneous. At the same time, it was urged by the private respondent on the basis of pleadings in his counter affidavit that in any event the order of the appellate 3 authority should be held to be good in as much as the appellant did not have the basic required qualification of first class in Shashtri examination. In the rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit, the appellant did not state with what class he passed the Shashtri examination. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the appellant gave an impression to the learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, that he has secured second Division in Acharya examination. The Court looked into the 1981 Rules and found that the required qualification for being appointed as Headmaster is second Class in Shashtri or Acharya Examination and not first class, as was contended by the private respondent in his counter affidavit. In the circumstances, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the appellate authority was quashed. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a review 4 application and thereby contended that there is an error on the face of the order of the Court disposing of the writ petition, in as much as the order has been passed proceeding on the basis that the appellant is a second class Acharya whereas, in fact, he is a third class Shashtri. This assertion was not denied by the appellant by filing any pleading. The appellant also did not produce his certificate showing that he has secured a second class Shashtri. In the circumstances, by the judgment and order under appeal the learned Judge reviewed his order passed on the writ petition and thereupon recalled the same and dismissed the writ petition. 2. The fact remains that the appellant was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 07th August, 1983 and that the appellant is a third class Shashtri. In the memorandum of appeal, the 5 appellant has not questioned the 1981 Rules, but has contended that in terms of the said Rules a person who is a Shashtri is entitled to be appointed as Headmaster but if the person is an Acharya, then he is required to have at least a second class Acharya. It was, thus, contended that the appellant, despite having a third class Shashtri, was entitled to be appointed as Headmaster and, accordingly, the order under appeal is interferable. 3. In comparison, qualification of Acharya, is better than the qualification of Shashtri. If for the purpose of appointment to the post of Headmaster one requires at least a second class Acharya degree, it is not comprehendible that an ordinary Shashtri, without second class, will do. The appellant is seeking to take advantage of the words used in the concerned Rule. The Rule says “Three years Shashtri or Acharya in 6 second class”. The appellant contends that the word „or‟, is a disjunctive word, which separates three years Shashtri with that of Acharya in second class and, accordingly, any Shashtri will do, but for an Acharya he has to have a second class. It is true that disjunctive word „or‟ has been used in between “three years Shashtri” and “Acharya”, but the disjunctive word „or‟ in the circumstances was used to mean that either will do. In other words, it was mentioned that three years Shashtri as well as an Acharya will do. But both of them had been qualified with the words “second class” and, accordingly, only a second class three years Shashtri or a second class Acharya, according to the Rule, was eligible to be appointed as Headmaster. 7 4. In those circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.) Patna High Court, The 10th July,2008. AAhmad/(NAFR).