KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division at Chapra terminating him from the post of Assistant Teacher on the ground that he does not come within 150 persons recommended for appointment from the panel and that his name stood at serial 340.

(2.) It is submitted that pursuant to an advertisement for Matric Trained Teachers in August, 1988, the petitioner participated in the interview in March, 1989. A final panel was prepared and approved from serials 1 to 150 on 11.12.1990. Subsequently, pursuant to objections filed with regard to the panel recommendations, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 30.11.1991 and he started discharge of duties and was granted A.C.P. after 12 years of service by order dated 30.5.2009. He was issued a show cause notice on 17.7.2009. His panel position in paragraph-III was blank. It simply alleged that he was beyond 150. The petitioner filed his reply on 29.7.2009 asserting that his name was within the extent of persons recommended. A departmental proceeding was then initiated against the petitioner for an allegedly wrong appointment on 27.4.2010 as not being within 150 persons. On 6.12.2010 final orders were passed that his name stood at serial 340, much beyond 150 persons recommended. The impugned order has then been passed. The enquiry report as appended to the second show cause does not contain any finding of the nature mentioned in the second show cause notice. The impugned order dated 30.12.2012 has been brought on record by I.A. No. 1108/11 which is allowed.

(3.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that it is nobody's case that he was not an applicant and did not undergo a selection process. The orders do not suggest that he was ineligible to be considered for appointment. Without prejudice to his contentions that his name figured within the list of selected 150 candidates, it is submitted that even if what the respondents contend be correct, it was a mere irregularity if the panel position had been violated. That cannot be sufficient justification to terminate his service nearly 20 years later. Reliance is placed on (State of U.P., Appellant vs. Rafiquddin and Others, 1988 AIR(SC) 162), (V.N. Sunanda Reddy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 1995 Supp2 SCC 235), (A.P. Public Service Commission vs. K. Sudarshan Reddy and Others, 2006 5 SCC 505) and , (H.C. Puttaswamy vs. Hon ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore, 1991 AIR(SC) 295).