SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Pat) 56

PATNA HIGH COURT
B.D.Singh, J.
Kapildeo Narayan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1118 of 1973 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 23, 1976

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Petitioner not disclosing correct fact in writ application -The person against whom grievance made not made party - Writ application is not maintainable.

       Held, that due to the suppression of the material facts by the petitioner in the main writ application, the application under the writ jurisdiction is not maintainable and that by itself may be a ground for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Besides he ought to have also impleaded RajKumar Singh, who was asked by the Department to take charge from the petitioner as the headmaster of the school. He was a necessary party. He was impleaded as a defendent in the title suit but has been left out while filing the writ application. If the application of the petitioner would have been allowed, be would have materially suffered, Therefore, the application of the petitioner was also not maintainable in the absence of Raj Kumar Singh. (Para 6)

       Art. 311(2) - Petitioner an assistant teacher promoted to tile post of Headmaster on officiating basis - Subsequent reversion to the post of assi8tant teacher is not demotion attracting the provisions of Art. 311(2) - A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1329 Rel. on. (Para 5)

       

Judgment

1. This application by Kapildeo Narain Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated the 9th March, 1973 (Annexure-4) to the Writ application passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, respondent No. 2, whereby according to the petitioner he was demoted from the post of the Head Master to the post of the assistant teacher of Middle School, Bandhua, P.S. Mufassil in the District of Gaya. The petitioner has therefore prayed for quashing the said order contained in Annexure 4 and for a direction that the petitioner be deemed to have been working as Head Master in the said school against a permanent vacancy and for further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to settle the pay and allowance of the petitioner, as Head Master of the School.

2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this application it will be necessary to state briefly the facts as stated by the petitioner in his application and as stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has stated in his application that he passed the Intermediate Examination from the Bihar University in the year 1960. Subsequently he took a teachers training course and passed the same from the Teachers Training School, Kodarma, Government of Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the said School by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, respondent No. 2, under Rule 45 of the Bihar Primary and Middle Education Rules 1961 on the 21st of November, 1966 and accordingly he joined his post on the 30th of November, 1966. The Service condition of the petitioner is governed by Bihar and Orissa Local Self Government Act, the Bihar Education Code, 1961 and also various circulars issued from time to time by the Education Department, Government of Bihar. The petitioner got the scale of I. A. trained since the date of appointment in accordance with the circular dated the 29th of July, 1966, from the Education Department of the Government of Bihar. The circular specifically prescribed that only Head Master with I. A. trained qualification or B. A. trained qualification and only one of the Assistant teachers having I. A. trained qualification are eligible for scale as prescribed by the Government of Bihar. The petitioner as per practice being the seniormost in qualification and fit for the post of Head Master under the Circular dated the 29th July, 1966, of the Education Department was appointed against the substantive vacancy in the post of Head Master on the 13th October, 1967. The petitioner from time to time was representing before the authorities to allow him to enjoy the headship allowance of Rupees 5/- which was due since the date of his appointment as Head Master. But he was always assured that the matter was under consideration, and he was also told that his service book had not been made ready: as long as it was not decided whether he had been officiating or working against the permanent vacancy the same could not be settled. The petitioner has annexed copy of his representation dated the 28th June, 1968, as Annexure I to the writ petition. Finally, in the year 1970, the matter in question was decided by the authority and accordingly the petitioner was supplied with a service book. The service book bore as many as 15 columns, and the same contained full particulars in regard to his appointment, scale and other related matters. In column 2 of the service book the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Master was described as substantive and temporary. In column 4 the petitioner was given his pay in the substantive post. The said service book was duly signed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools from the year 1970 as prescribed in column 9. According to the petitioner the service book confirmed that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master against substantive, and temporary vacancy from 1st April, 1967. The petitioner was and is given the pay in sub












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top