AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit of service and the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner be kept on record. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as the Teacher-in-Charge of Hat Chapra King Edward High School (Higher Secondary) (in short, the said school) by a letter dated 19th May, 2016. Suddenly, without any prior notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no. 8 was illegally appointed as the Headmaster of the said school and by a letter dated 4th January, 2018 the respondent no. 6 requested the petitioner to hand over charge to the said respondent no. 8. In the said letter it was also stated that the governing body of the founder body in its meeting held on 13th December, 2017 has appointed the respondent no. 8 as the Headmaster of the said school.
According to Mr. Mishra, the petitioner fulfils the suitability criteria for being appointed to the post of Headmaster. In appreciation of such qualification, the school authorities themselves appointed him as a Teacher-in- Charge and prior to ascertainment of comparative suitability among the petitioner and the respondent no. 8, the said school authorities appointed the respondent no. 8 as the Headmaster. Such action, according to him, is in violation of the provisions of clauses 10(i) and 10(ii) of the Guidelines for Recruitment in Permanent and Temporary Vacancies of Christian Minority and Aided Schools (in short, the said Guidelines).
Per contra Mr. Baid, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 4-8 submits that if the candidate to be appointed to the post of Headmaster is a member of the religious/linguistic minority to which the school belongs he can be appointed directly by the President of founder body without following the normal procedure as laid down under Rule 4 of the notification dated 3rd February, 2016. According to him there is no provision under the said government notification dated 13th February, 2016 and the said guidelines that for filling up the said post in a minority institution, the authorities have to decide comparative suitability among the candidates. The respondent no. 8 is within the age limit and has the appropriate qualification and is also a member of the religious minority to which the school belongs.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In clause 10(ii) of the said Guidelines it has been specified that even if a candidate who is a member of the religious minority to which the school belongs, is appointed to the post of Headmaster, such appointment will be subject to approval of the respondent no. 3. In view of such requirement under the said Guidelines all relevant papers pertaining to appointment of the respondent no. 8 to the post of Headmaster of the said school are required to be forwarded by the school authorities to the said respondent no. 3. The issue of suitability as referred to in clause 10(i) of the said Guidelines is also required to be taken into consideration by the said respondent no. 3 before approving the appointment of the respondent no.8 as Headmaster of the minority institution.
In the said conspectus, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the matter needs to be relegated to the respondent no.3 since the appointment of the respondent no. 8 to the post of Headmaster of the said school has not yet been finally approved by the said respondent.
Accordingly this Court directs the school authorities, particularly the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to forward all relevant documents pertaining to the appointment of the respondent no. 8 to the respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from date.
Upon receipt of the said documents from the school authorities and within a period of four weeks thereafter, the respondent no. 3 shall consider the same and take a final decision as regards the approval of the respondent no. 8 to the post of Headmaster of the said school, upon granting a opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 6 & 8 and to communicate such decision to the petitioner. With the above observations and directions the writ petitioner is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.