UPENDRA NARAYAN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties in all these three cases.

(2.) The petitioners are working on the post of peon in the different High Schools. By the common impugned order dated 31.8.2007 have been sought to be removed from service only on the ground that at the time of their initial appointment in the year 1981-82 the procedure meant for appointment on Class-IV post including publication of advertisement in the newspaper and undergoing the prescribed procedure for appointment was not followed.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases has submitted that it is not in doubt that the Collector of the district was authorized to nominate a person from his panel for appointment on any Class-IV post, in view of the procedure laid down in Government circular no. 16441 dated 3.12.1980. He has also submitted that the appointment letter of the petitioner itself goes to show that their such appointment was made in the light of the recommendation made by the Collector and therefore, it cannot be said that the prescribed procedure for appointment at the time of entry of the petitioners in service was not followed. He has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and in this regard a specific averment made by the petitioners of their being no notice and/or opportunity of hearing has in fact not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. He has also relied on the order dated 18.11.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 13422 of 2007, wherein, a similarly situated person namely Rishikesh Pandey, terminated by the same impugned order was directed to be reinstated in service after quashing the order so far it related to him.