Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present controversy is in relation to the internecine dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent of being given the post of Incharge Headmaster of Plus Two Pichhari Jati Awasia Balika Uchha Vidyalay, Kuruwa, Dumka. Both the persons have their own reasons to justify that one over the other is the proper person to be posted as Incharge Headmaster. Some of the relevant details of the parties are being indicated hereunder: (i) The petitioner is said to have joined on 11th November, 1994 in the Graduate Trained Scale and completed teachers training in the year 2002 while obtained the B.Ed. Degree in May, 2013. He was posted in the instant school on 29th April, 2008 as a Teacher. It is further claim of the petitioner that on 19th May, 2011, he was posted as Incharge Headmaster of the said school and on 2nd June, 2011, the same was confirmed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka. (ii) The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 5 was appointed in Matric Untrained Scale in 1982 and got Graduate Trained Scale on 31st December, 1994 after the petitioner. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the private respondent does not have B.Ed. qualification and there are questions over the Post Graduation Degree of the private respondent as well. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondent got posted as Incharge Headmaster on 31st December, 2012 by the order of Deputy Commissioner and not by the department. Though she continued thereafter, but on the petitioner's representation made on 16th December, 2013 after having obtained the B.Ed qualification he has been posted as Incharge Headmaster by an order of the respondent department issued on 11th March, 2014 indicating therein that he will continue till regular Headmaster was appointed. It is therefore submitted that the private respondent cannot claim to be senior to the petitioner to be considered for even giving the charge of Headmaster and the gradation list which is relied upon by the private respondent is only provisional in nature published in 2012 in respect of which objections have also been made. It is further submitted that since no fresh determination on the inter se seniority of the petitioner and the private respondent has been made after issuance of the order of 11th March, 2014, there is no reason why the said arrangement should be disturbed by the impugned order dated 20th June, 2014, Annexure11 to the writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent submits that the private respondent belongs to female category and since the school is +2 Backward Caste Girls Residential High School, she is considered better suited to be posted as Incharge Headmistress. It is further submitted that the arrangement of the private respondent as the Incharge Headmistress continued in the school from 13th January, 2012 till the same was replaced by the order issued on 11th March, 2014, placing the petitioner as Headmaster. However, the respondents have realized their mistakes and the respondent no. 5 has therefore been posted as Incharge Headmistress by the impugned order.;