- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A bunch of writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 14th February, 2012 and the writ petition of the appellantpetitioners was also dismissed. The present appellants, Prabodh Kumar and Jayant Kumar, were the writ petitioners in W.P (S) No.4783/2011. Learned counsel for the appellantpetitioners submitted that the respondentState came out in reply with specific plea that the post of teachers for +2 schools were advertised in the light of the scheme of the Central Schools. It is submitted that in Central School Rules, there is no age bar for the service candidates and therefore, the petitioners could not have been held to be not eligible for the post of teachers for +2 schools. It is also submitted that the petitioners were though teachers of the primary schools, but were on deputation and posted in the Higher Secondary School since last 7 years and therefore, the petitioners were eligible for the post of teachers in 50% reserved seats for the service teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is apparent from the Scheme of recruitment of +2 teachers and from the decision dated 5th July, 2011, a complete code has been prescribed as a policy decision till the Rules are framed by the State Government and in that scheme, it is provided that the maximum age of a candidate can be upto 40 years. Guidance can be taken from anywhere and if, after taking help of some rules, the State itself has framed any policy decision with respect to prescribing outer limit of the age of a candidate for appointment on the post of teachers for +2 schools, that other rule cannot prevail which runs contrary to the specific policy decision framed by the State Government and therefore, the petitioners cannot rely upon the rules of the Central Schools, which were only of help for the preparation of the scheme for recruitment of the teachers.
(3.) THE petitioners were holding the post of teachers in Higher Secondary School, i.e. in +2 school, only on deputation and deputation creates no right over the post in question and the petitioners' cadre remains in the cadre of teachers of primary schools. Therefore also there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the process of selection, the petitioners were eligible candidates. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition. This appeal is, thus, dismissed.;