Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4481 of 2013 ====================================================== Sikandar Prasad Yadav Son Of Raghunandan Prasad Yadav Resident Of Mohalla : - Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 20, P.S. : - Chitragupta Nagar, District : - Khagaria At Presently Posted As A Headmaster At Middle School Hajipur, Aawas Board, Anchal Khagaria, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Education Dy.Director , Munger Division, District Munger 5. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Khagaria 6. The District Education Officer, Khagaria 7. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Khagaria 8. The Block Extention Education Officer, Anchal : - Khagaria District : - Khagaria 9. The Drawing And Disbursing Officer Cum Treasury Officer Bapu Middle School , Baluahi , Anchal : - Khagaria, District - Khagaria 10. Shri Bhikhari Paswan, The Headmaster Middle School Amani Anchal - Mansi District - Khagaria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s Pankaj Kr. Jha & Shekhar Kr. Singh For the Respondent/s : M/s K.B. Singh, SC 22, Umesh Prasad & Mirtunjay Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 22-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer in this writ application when it was originally filed on 28.02.2013, was for quashing of an order passed by the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Khagaria dated 05.02.2013 which reads as follows: dk;kZy; ftyk dk;Z(cid:216)e inkf/kdkjh] LFkkiuk “kk[kk] [kxfM+;k dk;kZy;&vkns”k {ks=h; f”k{kk mi funs”kd eqaxsj ize.My] eqaxsj ds Kkikad& 1523 fnukad 06-11-2012 ds vkyksd esa ftyk 2 f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh [kxfM+;k ds vkns”kkuqlkj Jh fHk[kkjh ikloku iz/kkuk/;kid e-fo- gkthiqj vkokl cksMZ [kxfM+;k dks e/; fo|ky; gkthiqj vkokl cksMZ esa ;ksxnku djus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh izHkkjh iz-nk-v- Jh fldUnj iz- ;kno dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfoyEc Jh ikloku dks fo|ky; dk lEiw.kZ izHkkj lkSirs gq, vuqikyu izfrosnu lefiZr djsaA g0& ftyk dk;Z(cid:216)e inkf/kdkjh LFkkiuk “kk[kk [kxfM+;k As would be apparent, the said order is only by way of compliance of the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division in his Memo. No. 1523 dated 06.11.2012. None of the parties have brought this order on the record and Court have proceeded on argue this case on different dates. In view of the fact that the main order has not been
Legal Reasoning
challenged by the petitioner and only consequential order has been sought to be assailed, this writ application must be held to be misconceived. Having recorded so, this Court however must take into account the events which have taken place in this case. As noted above the aforesaid order was passed on 05.02.2013 for joining of respondent no.10, who was earlier allegedly working as an regular headmaster of the School in question, namely, Madhya Vidyalaya, Hajipur Aawas Board, Khagaria by directing the 3 petitioner working as Incharge Headmaster of the school to hand
Legal Reasoning
over charge to the Respondent no. 10. Today learned counsel for respondent no.10 has submitted that in view of the subsequent order dated 28.12.2012 the respondent no.10 has already joined on his transferred School, namely, Amani Madhya Vidyalaya Amani. Once this order has been passed, removing the respondent no.10 from the school, in view of the order of District Education Officer, Khagaria, vide Memo. No.316 dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner) the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 stands already modified specially when the respondent no.10 has already joined in the transferred School at Amani. The matter, however, not end there inasmuch as after that order the petitioner has been placed under suspension by an order dated 03.04.2013 on the ground that he did not comply the order of transfer and his explanation for non-compliance of the order was found to be unsatisfactory. The order dated 03.04.2013, therefore, has also displaced the petitioner from the post of incharge headmaster for the present though at one point of time the petitioner was sought to be given regular promotion on that post in view of the decision taken in the meeting of the District Promotion Committee as referred to in the order dated 29.12.2012, 4 as contained in Annexure-3. It is really amazing that on one hand on 29.12.2012 both the District Education Officer, Khagaria and District Programme Officer Establishment have signed and issued an order of promotion of the petitioner and have asked him to continue in the same School, namely, Madhya Vidyalaya, Hajipur Awas Board, Khagaria and yet on 05.02.2013 the petitioner has been sought to be directed to hand over charge to respondent no.10 of the post of the headmaster. Such inconsistent order passed by the District Programme Officer Establishment either in defence of the decision taken by the District Promotion Committee leading to the issuance of order of promotion of the petitioner dated 29.12.2012 or the alleged compliance of the order of the Regional Deputy Director dated 06.11.2012 which is prior to the decision of the District Promotion Committee would only go to show glaring inefficiency on the part of the District Programme Officer Establishment, Khagaria. Be that it may, today this writ application, both on account of removal of the petitioner from the School and on account of being placed under suspension and the respondent no.10 on account of is being subsequently transferred and posted to another School at Amani has become infructuous and is, 5 accordingly, dismissed because today the transfer matter has taken a back seat in view of the disciplinary proceeding started against the petitioner. Before parting with it has however to be observed that the petitioner is purposely evading such disciplinary proceeding on the strength of an interim order of status quo passed on 22.3.2013 but then that was not the scope of interim order because disciplinary proceeding could have been definitely initiated against the petitioner. This Court would accordingly direct the Disciplinary Authority to ensure that the departmental proceeding is now completed against the petitioner expeditiously. It also goes without saying that after conclusion of departmental proceeding and subject to the punishment, if any, the decision for petitioner’s posting will be taken in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is accordingly dismissed. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)