D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner No. 1, who is an association of teachers wants to disburse the salary of its members/teachers, every month, which is not allowed by the District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum East. As there is no Headmaster with the concerned respondents -school and, therefore, the District Superintendent of Education, is paying the salary to all the teachers.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 wants to distribute the salary to their own teachers and the District Superintendent of Education cannot disburse the salary because there is no Headmaster with the respondents -school, as per Rule 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the District Superintendent of Education cannot disburse the salary to the petitioners, every month because the powers have already been given to the Headmaster of the respective school by the District Superintendent of Education and the school where the petitioners are serving, there is no Headmaster and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 wants to disburse the salary and for that this writ petition has been preferred. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) it appears that present petitioner No. 1 is a Union of the teachers. It also appears that the teachers where they are working there is no Headmaster in the school and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 wants to disburse the salary to the teachers. (ii) it also appears from the facts of the case that the District Superintendent of Education is distributing salary to the teachers regularly and without deducting unauthorisedly any amount. (iii) thus, the District Superintendent of Education, who is Government officer, is distributing the salary to the petitioners (teachers) in absence of the Headmaster in school. I, therefore, see no illegality in the methodology, if the high ranking officer(s) of the Government, who is responsible for the distribution of the salary to the teachers, is disbursing the same. (iv) I am unable to understand why petitioner No. 1 wants to disburse the salary. In fact, this is Union of teachers. They are more concerned with teaching and betterment of education. For any resolution passed by respondents for any teaching process, and if the respondents are objecting one can understand, but, if salary is being paid by the District Superintendent of Education correctly, regularly and without any unauthorized deduction, there is no legal vested rights with petitioner No. 1 that it is the only person, who can distribute the salary; even looking to the Rule 148 of the Jharkhand Treasury Rule. There is no such absolute right as vested in the petitioner No. 1.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in the writ petition, hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.;