R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.6.2002 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranohi Respondent No. 2.(Annexure -2), whereby the claim of petitioner for recognition of his post as founder Headmaster, has been rejected.
(2.) MR . A.K. Sahani submitted that petitioner was appointed on 1.1.1981 as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of Adivasi High School Chhappargarha, Tenughat (Now in the district of Bokaro) (Annexure 1). The Managing Committee appointed him as Headmaster by order dated 21st January, 1981 (Annexure -2). Thereafter, has been working as Headmaster in the said school but as his name was not recommended for recognisition for the appointment as Headmaster, he filed a writ petition being W.P.S No. 5294 of 2001. The petitioner contended therein that his case is covered by the Judgment of Supreme Court Reported in 1998 Volume II PLJR page 2 (SC) A.K. Pradhan. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.10.2001 with the direction to make representation before the Director, Secondary Education to determine as to whether the petitioner's east? is covered by the said judgment or not. Mr. Sahani further submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed a detailed representation but by the impugned order, petitioner's case has been rejected wrongly. The learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the recommendation dated 18.9.1995 (Annexure -8) made by the District Education Officer was obtained by misrepresentation and the petitioner was never appointed as Founder Headmaster. He further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and he was authorized by R.D.D.E., Hazaribagh to function as acting headmaster in the said school only vide memo dated 18th March 1983 and therefore, if the petitioner had functioned continuously as acting headmaster from 1.1.1982 then he could have been recognized as founder headmaster.
(3.) IN reply Mr. Sahani submitted that the petitioner is not sanguine for being recognized as founder headmaster but after working for seven years as Incharge Headmaster, the petitioner's case should have been considered for recognizing him as Headmaster.;