RAGHUNATH MARANDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) Through this writ application the petitioners seek quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 148(P) dated 28.7.2009 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar rejecting the representation of the petitioners filed in light of Court's order dated 7.7.2008 passed in C.WJ.C. No. 4282 of 2004 as contained in Annexure-10.

(3.) In the earlier application the petitioners had challenged the two separate orders dated 23.10.2003 terminating their services from the Class-IV post. it was reflected in the impugned orders that the appointment of the petitioner was of a temporary nature that was extended from time to time, however, the initial appointment itself was not in consonance with law. A stand was taken by the petitioners that they were entitled for consideration of the appointment being wards of the persons who had donated lands for establishment of project school. This Court, in view of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sudarshan Ram V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2004 3 PLJR 553, had disposed of the writ application with a direction to, the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the. observations made by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the authority concerned. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of circular nos. 16640 and 16441 dated 3.12.1980 which was issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department for the purpose of making appointment of Class-ill and Class-IV posts of the Project School. However, a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 6.4.2010 passed in L.P.A. No. 1492/2009 and other connected matters has held that both the circulars are dead letters as they remained inoperative since their inception. Thus, it has been urged that they could not have been relied upon by the respondent no. 3 for rejecting the representation filed on behalf of the petitioners. A Xerox copy of the order has been produced at the time of hearing. Let the copy of the order be kept in records of this case.