CIVIL APPEAL 14737 of 2013 on 27 September 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14737 of 2013

====================================================== Bharat Sharma Son Of Late Jaglal Sharma Resident Of Village + P.O. Milki, Police Station- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Department Of Education, Bhagalpur 4.The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur 5.The Block Education Officer, Bihpur, Bhagalpur 6.Sri Ram Chandra Prasad Assistant Teacher, Middle School Milki, Mina Chak, Bihpur (Bhagalpur)

.... .... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHAORAL ORDER

3 05-03-2014

Since this writ application has been restored today by a separate order passed in MJC No. 4249 of 2013, learned counsel for the parties have been also heard on merit.

In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to declare him senior to the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the petitioner had entered in service on 27.9.1994 as an untrained teacher whereas the respondent no.6 had been appointed as a Teacher in the year 2000 and he too was untrained but, he had passed the Teachers Training Examination in the year 2005 whereas the petitioner had passed his Training Examination in the year 2009 but, then, on the basis of the earlier date of appointment as a Matric Untrained Teacher, the petitioner was rightly declared as senior most teacher of the school by an order of the Block Education Officer, Bihpur, Bhagalpur dated 18.6.2013, which had enabled him to work as a In-charge Headmaster of the school and, therefore, the order passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bhagalpur dated 14.6.2013 declaring the respondent no.6 to be senior to the petitioner cannot be sustained.

In the considered opinion of this Court, first of all, the Block Education officer, Bihpur, Bhagalpur, has no power to declare any one senior or junior in the cadre of teacher of the primary school. If the Block Education Officer, Bihpur, Bhagalpur, in fact had got any difficulty in this regard, he ought to have referred the matter to the District Programme Officer (Establishment). That having been not done, this Court cannot give any weightage to the order passed by the Block Education Officer dated 18.6.2013 declaring the petitioner senior to Respondent no. 6.

In any event, when there was already a contrary decision of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bhagalpur in his order dated 14.6.2013 declaring the Respondent no. 6 senior to the petitioner, the Block Education Officer, Bihpur, Bhagalpur, in all fairness ought to have stayed his hands in crossing sword with his superior authority and passing a contrary Rishi/- order on 18.6.2013 in favour of the petitioner.

As would be apparent, the issue relates to the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent no.6 on the post of matric trained teacher and has its nexus for next promotion on the post of B.A. trained Teacher. The competent authority to take such a decision in terms of Promotion Rules 2011. Thus if the petitioner would his representation before the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur he would get the seniority of the petitioner vis-avis Respondent no. 6 decided by the aforesaid Promotion Committee. If the petitioner or Respondent no. 6 is aggrieved by such decision of Committee an appeal can also be filed against such order of the District Promotion Committee before the Regional Deputy Director of Education.

It is however made clear that if the petitioner raises the issue of seniority as against the respondent no.6 by filing a representation before the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur, he shall afford opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner and Respondent no. 6 before taking an appropriate decision through the District Promotion Committee.

With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)