AWANIKANT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -There are 67 Petitioners in the present writ petition They have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 12.12-1989 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent,Dierctor,Primary Education and the letter of termination dated 15-12-1989 (Annexure-2)issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, Respondent No 4 and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that thay were first appointed at teachers in the Elementary Schools sometime in the year 1982 Petitioners No. 1 to 26 claim to be disabled persons and petitioners No. 27 to 67 are science teachers. The petitioners clanin that they were appointed in deviation of the general roles of appointment because of relaxation granted by the Government in respect of the above two categories of teachers during the relevant period. Admittedly in 1984-85, after some enquiry at the Government level, with regard to irregularities committed in respect of those appointments, the appointments of the petitioners was cancelled. According to the petitioners, they were again appointed as teachers on 5-5-1989, pursuant to a select list prepared by the Establishment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Respondent No. 3. One of the appointment letters has been filed as Annexure-14/A to this writ petition. The Government having learnt about the re-appointment of these petitioners took) a serious view of the matter. By the impugned order dated 12th December, 1989, as contained in Annexure-1, the Respondent, Director, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner Godda, expressing his resentment on the appointment of the petitioners the same being in the teeth of the earlier decision of the Government declaring their first appointment to be illegal. According to the Director, in view of the Government policy, untrained teachers could not have been appointed in Elementary Schools. Accordingly, it was directed that the appointments of the petitioners made pursuant to the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 5-5-1989. which was contrary to the Government Rules, should be immediately cancelled. Consequent upon this direction, the Respondent, District Superintendent of Education, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners by the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-2.

(3.) Mt. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the pe itioners, has sought to assail the impugned orders on various grounds. But in my view, it is not neceisary to enter into greater details of the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners and the Respondents, Keeping in view tbe decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 309. In Shrawan Kumar's case (Supra) the appellants, who were 175 in number, were appointed as assistant teachers by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. But by order dated November 2, 1988, the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled the appointment on the ground that the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to make appointment. It was a device of by passing the reservations and the conditions which were part of appointment orders were not complied with. The Supreme Court in the said case has held that: