- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petitioner sought a direction upon authority of the respondent State i.e. the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) to consider and grant approval to appointment of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Secretary, Managing Committee, Mission Primary School, Gomoh, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 4) on the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric Trained Scale) / Headmistress where the petitioner claims to have submitted her joining on 1st of August 2002. The petitioner also seeks payment of arrears of salary with effect from 1st of August 2002. 2008(3) JLJR 352]. It is submitted that in that case also, this court treating the lacuna in appointment process and finding some irregularity, remanded the matter before the respondent authority to reconsider the same. 4. The respondent State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that there is no provision for appointment of Headmistress in a primary school like the Mission Primary School, Gomoh and the Managing Committee had acted beyond the Government Notification by directly selecting and appointing the petitioner on the post of Headmistress. Counsel for the respondent State submits that as per the direction issued from time to time which have been enclosed as annexures to their counter affidavit, all schools including the Managing Committee of the school in question were informed that on retirement of the Headmaster / Headmistress, the next senior most teacher ought to be appointed as Headmaster / Headmistress of the school. It has been further stated on their behalf that these circulars which are applicable to the petitioner's school, categorically stipulate that the senior most teacher of Primary School in question has to discharge the function of the Headmistress. The respondents have enclosed the letters written to the school vide annexures -C dated 16.7.2002, F dated 9.9.2002, G dated 28.12.2002 and annexure -H dated 7.5.2004. Based upon the aforesaid categorical statement supported by the documents, respondents submit that the approval of the recommendation of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Headmistress in the school could not have been granted and the same has been returned to the Managing Committee of the school asking them to give the charge of the Headmistress to the senior most teacher working there. 5. Respondent No. 4 has also appeared through their counsel. It is submitted on their behalf that the dispute at best is between the petitioner and the Managing Committee of the school and the forum where this dispute can be agitated is the Jharkhand Educational Tribunal and this court is an appellate forum against the decision rendered by the tribunal. Counsel for the respondent no. 4 also submits that at present, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the advertisement issued for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the said school which has been rendered in -fructuous because such interview could not be held on the date fixed i.e. on 04.12.2012 on account of public protest. Even after repeated queries made from the court, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision under which the Managing Committee of the school could have made appointment directly on the post of Headmistress in a Minority School like the present one. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondent State to grant approval on the recommendation of the Managing Committee of her appointment as Headmistress in the said Minority School, cannot be allowed by this court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction and no legal or statutory right seems to have been made out for issuance of such direction. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is in different context and the employee concerned was appointed as teacher in the said school. In the present case, the Managing Committee of the Mission Primary School has straightaway appointed the petitioner as Headmistress on the basis of an advertisement. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties at some length and after going through the relevant materials on record, in the facts and circumstances which have been narrated herein above, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any legal or statutory right to direct the respondent State officials to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Headmistress in the Primary Minority School managed by the Managing Committee of the school. It also appears that as per the Government Circulars and Guidelines, no appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress in a primary school can be made directly or upon advertisement and the same is filled up on retirement of senior most teacher by giving charge of the Headmaster/Headmistress to the next senior most teacher working in the said school. In the totality of facts narrated herein above, petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuance of writ or direction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. I.A. nos. 3806/09, 1981/10 and 3403/12 stand disposed of. Petition dismissed.;