ORIGINAL PETITION 7752 of 2019 on 13 September 1997

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education,Bihar.Bihar.

2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Bihar.

3. The District Education Officer, Patna.

4. School Managing Committee, Sir Syed Girls High School, Patna Citythrough the Principal.through the Principal.

... ... Respondent/s

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMARORAL ORDER

1114-10-2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the impugned memo no.35dated 10.01.2019, issued by Director (SecondaryEducation) Department of Education, Governmentof Bihar by which he refused to accord approval ofappointment of original petitioner to the post ofPrincipal/ Headmistress of Sir Syed Urdu GirlsHigh School (a Minority Institution) Patna City.

(ii) For directing the respondent to accordapproval so that the original petitioner can get hersalary which is not being paid since 18.03.2013.

(iii) For any other relief to which thepetitioner is found entitled to in the facts andcircumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe original petitioner was working as Headmistress/Principal ofSir Syed Urdu Girls High School, Patna City, at the time ofsuperannuation, which is a government-aided minority schoolmanaged by the governing body of the school. It is submittedthat on 20.10.1995, one advertisement was published in thedaily Urdu newspaper inviting applications for the unsanctionedpost of Biology and Math Assistant Teacher, and the originalpetitioner, having the requisite qualification of Masters degreein Science, had applied for the same. Since the said post wasreserved for a lady teacher, the appointment of the originalpetitioner was made against the post of Assistant Teacher ofMathematics, and accordingly, the appointment letter vide Ref.No. 074/1997 dated 13.09.1997 was issued. Since then, theoriginal petitioner had been working on the said post.

4. It has next been submitted that after theretirement of duly appointed Headmistress Smt. MaryamFatima, having retired on 30.09.1995, and interim arrangementcontinued till year 2012 and advertisement was published on04.12.2012, the original petitioner was appointed to the post of Headmistress by following due process of law on 18.03.2013. Itis the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisementpublished in the newspaper for direct recruitment to the post ofHeadmistress, the original petitioner is said to have beenappointed by Selection Committee from and amongst the threeshort-listed candidates, as she was holding a Master's degreewith B.Ed. degree and had more than 10 years of teachingexperience.

5. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed onbehalf of respondent no. 2, and a specific stand has been takenthat the original petitioner was appointed against the secondpost, which was not sanctioned, though she was paid salaryfrom the internal resources of the school. It is averred in thecounter affidavit that the original petitioner passed the B.Ed.examination from Indira Gandhi National Open University inthe year 2007, but from the averments made in the counteraffidavit, it does not appear that the B.Ed. degree obtained fromIndira Gandhi National Open University was prohibited fromconsideration.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submittedthat the original petitioner was holding a valid Master's degreein the Science subject since the year 1997, and on that basis, she

was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the said school onrecommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee.Therefore, the grounds which have been taken for denying thesalary for the post of Headmistress are not sustainable in law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, bydrawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-6 of the writapplication, submits that the Directorate of Secondary Educationhas come out with an order as contained in Memo No. 35 dated10.01.2019 issued under the signature of Director, SecondaryEducation, Patna, by which the claim of the petitioner has beenrejected, referring to the Rules of Bihar Secondary EducationAppointment Rules, 2004, wherein it has been mentioned thatfor the post of Headmistress, the candidate must have a B.Ed.degree with 9 years of experience.

8. Since, from the materials available on record, it isquite evident that the original petitioner was having a Master'sdegree in the subject Science and on that basis was initiallyappointed as Assistant Teacher in Sir Syed Urdu Girls HighSchool, Patna City in the year 1997 itself and had the requisiteexperience on the date of appointment in the year 2013 on the postof Head Mistress and the non-consideration of the experience bymisinterpreting the Rules is wholly unsustainable in law as sharun/- U

the material facts have not been considered. Therefore, the orderas contained in Memo No. 35 dated 10.01.2019 is set aside.

9. Since the original petitioner has already died on17.07.2021 and her daughter has been substituted in place of theminor petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2025, the respondentsare directed to decide the claim of the deceased employee andupon decision so taken, the payment of salary and consequentialbenefits which accrued in favour of the original petitioner shallbe paid to the present petitioner, who claims to be the daughterafter making due verification within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

(Ajit Kumar, J)