Patna High CourtL.P.A/1567/2014dismissed

Manoj Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-06-20The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1567 of 2014 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10462 of 2013 =========================================================== Manoj Kumar Sah, Son of Sri Bhavishya Sah, Resident of Laxmipur, Ward No. 16, P.S. + P.O. - Rosera, District- Samastipur.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Patna.

3. The Collector, Samastipur.

4. The District Education Officer, Samastipur.

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Samastipur.

6. The Block Education Officer, Rosera, Samastipur.

7. Ram Bali Singh, Son of Late Janardan Singh, Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Easmalia, Thatiya, Block - Rosera, District- Samstipur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 20-06-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10462 of 2013, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In the matter of fixation of seniority in the cadre of Panchayat Teacher, appellant claims the benefit of seniority mainly on the ground that appellant was appointed at an earlier point of time than Respondent No. 7. It was stated that appellant was appointed on

Patna High Court LPA No.1567 of 2014 dt.20-06-2017 2/3 12.12.2006 and as Respondent No. 7 was appointed on 16.08.2010, appellant should rank senior to Respondent No. 7. However, this claim has been rejected by the learned Writ Court by holding that there is no rule governing seniority. The seniority is determined on the basis of ranking of a person treating them to be Trained Teachers or Untrained Teachers. The learned Writ Court found that when the appellant was appointed on 12.12.2006, the appellant merely had a higher qualification but was an untrained teacher and successfully passed the Primary Teachers Evaluation Examination only in the year 2010, much after the appointment of Respondent No. 7 who had already passed the Teachers Training Examination in the year 2008.

Holding that a trained teacher has to be granted seniority over and above an untrained teacher being the guidelines issued by the Government, the writ petition has been rejected. In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court has not committed any error. Admittedly, the appellant was an untrained teacher and the seniority of the appellant is determined based on the period when the appellant passed the Teachers Training and Evaluation Examination and if Respondent No. 7 was a trained teacher and considering the same he has been granted seniority, we find no error in the same warranting consideration.

Patna High Court LPA No.1567 of 2014 dt.20-06-2017 3/3 The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 24.06.2017 Transmission Date