BINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order, as contained in Memo No. 781 dated 12 -6 -2000, whereby and whereunder petitioner No. 1 has been terminated as also direction has been given for recovery of the amount paid to him, and the order, as contained in Memo No. 789 dated 12 -6 -2000, whereby and whereunder petitioner No. 2 has been terminated and direction have been given for recovery of the amount paid to him.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 appointed as Clerk and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Peon on the basis of the recommendations of the Divisional Establishment Committee and names were called for from the Employment Exchange and on the basis thereof, the petitioners applied and they were interviewed and were finally selected by the Divisional Establishment Committee and, accordingly, they were appointed to the aforesaid posts. It is further submitted that at one point of time, the matter was scrutinised by the Director, Secondary Education at the stage when the salary of the petitioners were stopped and the Director, on scrutiny of the matter, ultimately, found that the petitioners were entitled for salary and, accordingly, directions were given as such.

(3.) PRIMA facie, it appears that the petitioners were appointed by the Divisional Establishment Committee, Tirhut Division, and from time to time, they were transferred from one place to another. It is further submitted that the posts as such were advertised and names were asked for from the Employment Exchange and on the basis of the applications filed by the petitioners, they were interviewed and appointed by the Divisional Establishment Committee. In this view of the matter, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that appointment of the petitioners could not have been cancelled as they were appointed after following the procedures laid down in law.