Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is seeking regularization on the post of Headmistress in Project Girls High School, Kuru, Lohardaga. According to her, since her appointment in 1981 pursuant to decision of Managing Committee of Girls High School, Kuru in its meeting held on 28th December, 1981, she continued for 7 years and more as Incharge Headmistress. She therefore has sought regularization of her service as Headmistress relying upon the ratio rendered by Apex Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in : 1998 (2) PLJR S.C. 211 in Civil Appeal No. 4032 of 1988. Petitioner contends that two other persons, namely, Ayesha Kumar and Julyani Balra who were appointed in Project Girls High School, Ormanjhi and Opa (Sos) in the district of Ranchi had come before this Court in writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 547 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No. 1517 of 2013 seeking regularization based upon the ratio of A.K. Pradhan case. It is submitted that Vidayalaya Seva Board had confirmed the appointment of petitioner and the aforesaid two teachers by an order dated 20th January, 1992 in the respective schools. By referring to the judgments dated 26th October, 2010 and 5th August, 2015 passed in the case of Ayesha Kumar and Julyani Balra, it is submitted that petitioner's case should also be considered for the purposes of regularization on the strength of her claim that she had continued as Headmistress for 7 years from the date of taking over of the school by respondent government.
(2.) PETITIONER has relied upon the decision of the Managing Committee at Annexure -1 dated 28th December, 1981, the office order of District Education Officer dated 10th February, 1984 approving the appointment of the petitioner in the said school as also Annexure -2 the service book of the petitioner. I have perused Annexures -1 and 2. It is found that in the office order dated 10th February, 1984 granting approval to the appointment of petitioner or in the service book there is no endorsement that petitioner had continued as a Headmistress of the School in question since the date of taking over upto 7 years or thereafter. In the case of Ayesha Kumar, the Respondent -State had taken a stand that though she was Incharge Headmistress in the Project School but the ratio of A.K. Pradhan applied only in Government School. Therefore, the claim of regularization was not maintainable. In the case of Julyani Balra in the judgment dated 5th August, 2015, it is noticed that in the service book of the said petitioner, there was endorsement of District Education Officer, to the effect that the said petitioner had joined as a Headmistress of the said school on 16th January, 1982 by virtue of appointment letter issued by Managing Committee of the school. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 3, Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi was directed to consider the claim of the said petitioners for regularization in terms of the ratio rendered in the case of A.K. Pradhan and other judgments relied upon by them. The judgment rendered in the case of A.K. Pradhan by Apex Court is to the effect that under the provisions of Section 3(3) of Bihar Non -Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, if a person has completed more than 7 years of service as a Headmaster/Headmistress of any such School taken over by the State Government, he would become eligible for consideration for regularization with effect from the date on which he completed 7 years of service reckoned from the date on which the institution was taken over by the State Government. In the instant case, though the petitioner's service was also confirmed by Vidayalaya Seva Board by an order passed in 1992 with the other two persons, Ayesha Kumar and Julyani Balra, but so far as claim of regularization on the post of Headmistress is concerned, the averments and the pleadings on record do not show that the petitioner had remained as an Incharge Headmistress for a period of 7 years reckoned from the date of taking over of the school. Therefore, in the absence of such essential material facts, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of ratio laid in A.K. Pradhan's case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;