CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1992) 12 PAT CK 0005

Krishna Mohan Prasad Sharma vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 16 December 1992 · Citation: (1994) 2 PLJR 19

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.B. Sinha, J · G.C. Bharuka, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 8489 of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 376 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Panday on behalf of Respondent No. 4.

2.

In this writ application the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.7.90 (Annexure-2) whereby the Respondent No. 4 has been posted in the school in question.

3.

Mr. R.C. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 18.7.91 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application from a perusal whereof it appears that the order of transfer of one Mahmood Ansari, headmaster, was cancelled as teachers in the Junior Selection Grade (440) was available in the school concerned.

4.

Mr. Jha has also drawn our attention to an observation made by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4025 of 1992 (Devi Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.) disposed of on 11.6.92 wherein the Respondent No. 2 of that case was directed to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner of that petition keeping in view the Government assurance given in Bihar Legislative Council on 20th March, 1991.

5.

The Petitioner is a teacher and no legal right is vested in him to be posted in a particular school. The matter relating to appointment to headmaster can only be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. It is possible that some assurance has been given on the floor of the Legislative Council but such assurance neither confers any legal right upon a teacher nor such assurance can be enforced in a court of law.

6.

In such a situation the remedy of the Petitioner, if any, is merely to agitate before the appropriate authority of the State Government under the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules. The Petitioner may file a representation, which shall be disposed of by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. But while exercising our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution we can not grant any relief in favour of the Petitioner only on the basis of some assurance given on the floor of the Legislative Council.

7.

This application is thus disposed of with the aforementioned observations.