- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in the third round of litigation has a grievance relating to grant of the benefit of the post of Headmistress, which she was first time conferred in the year 1988 and was withdrawn thereafter by an order passed on 15.7.1992 by the Director, Secondary Education, the erstwhile Government of Bihar. The petitioner agitated against the said reversion order in the writ petition being CWJC No. 6702/1992, which was quashed by the judgment dated 17.2.1995 by directing the concerned respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner within a stipulated period and in the light of the observation made in the said judgment. The observation made relating to the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of headmistress as per the advertisement under which she was promoted as headmistress, is contained in para 11 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-- "11. From the facts stated above, it is clear that when the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Headmistress she had the requisites experience of seven years as per the application form issued by the Bihar School Service Board. The requisite form has also been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit and the same has been marked as Annexure-19, from which it appears that the candidates having requisite experience, either from a recognised high school by the Government or a school, which has got permission for establishment, may apply. Since the petitioner was working as a teacher in Domchach Girls High School, which had the permission for establishment, it appears that the petitioner had the requisite experience for appointment on the post of Headmistress as per advertisement as contained in Annexure-5."
(2.) The respondent No. 2, however, chose to reject the petitioner's application by an order passed on 5.5.1995, which is Annexure-6 to the instant writ petition on the ground that she did not have the requisite teaching experience of 7 years in a recognised High School. The petitioner, therefore, went before the Patna High Court challenging the same in another writ petition, which was, however, dismissed. The petitioner preferred a letters patent appeal being LPA No. 311/1995(R), which was heard and decided upon transfer to this Court, after bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar, by judgment dated 22.1.2003. The letters patent appeal was allowed after hearing the rival parties in the following manner:-- "22.1.2003. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner-appellant has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.5.1995 passed by the Director, Secondary Education as contained in Memo No. 281 (legal) whereby her appointment as the Headmistress of the Project Girls' High Court, Koderma has been cancelled mainly on the ground that she did not possess the requisite experience of seven years for her appointment as the Headmistress. During the course of hearing of this case, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit regarding the present position of the petitioner. The said affidavit has been filed on 25.11.2002. Paragraph-4 of the said affidavit reads thus:-- "4. That the present affidavit is being filed to inform this Hon'ble Court that the appellant Smt. Meena Banerjee is working as an Assistant Teacher and drawing salary of Assistant Teacher, but by virtue of being seniormost Teacher in the Project Girls' High School, Koderma, she is officiating as In-charge Headmistress." It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working on the post of Headmistress or as an officiating or in-charge Head Mistress since 1988 till date, may be on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. There is no dispute that the petitioner was qualified so far as the post of Headmistress is concerned. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the question of seven years' experience become redundant as on today so far as this case of the petitioner-appellant is concerned. The anxiety of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is that this may not be treated as a precedent in other cases. Therefore, we make it clear that in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we quash the impugned order dated 5.5.1995 as aforesaid, but this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases so far as the requirement of seven years' experience for appointment as Headmistress is concerned."
(3.) Apparently, the Letters Patent Court also observed that there were no dispute that the petitioner was qualified as far as the post of Headmistress is concerned. It also observed that the question of seven years experience became redundant as on that day so far as the case of the petitioner-appellant is concerned. It was, however, made clear that the said judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases, so far as the requirement of seven years experience for appointment as Headmistress is concerned. Thereafter, by an order dated 22nd December, 2004 issued by the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, (Annexure-11) the petitioner has been granted the post of Headmistress, however, w.e.f. 22nd January, 2003 i.e. the date of passing of the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 311/1995(R). She has, therefore, approached this Court once again for direction upon the respondents to grant her the benefit of the post of Headmistress from 1988 itself.;