KAMINI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, State as also the respondents no. 5 and 6. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order vide Memo No. 18 dated 17th of January 2011 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder regularization/recognition of the services of the petitioners which were granted to them, as per the Government Letter dated 24th of June 2008 (Annexure-8), was cancelled on the ground that petitioners were absent from duty for a long time and, as such, their names were removed from the attendance register of the school, in question, in the light of the spot inspection, carried on 7th of August 1999 by the District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality, as the services of the petitioners were regularized which as such, could not have been cancelled allegedly due to absence from their duty constituting misconduct without holding a regular enquiry. It is further submitted that instead of holding regular departmental enquiry, the authority took recourse of terminating their services by way of cancelling the recognition of their service itself which is not permissible in law.

(3.) It is further contended that notwithstanding the above, respondent no. 2 has passed the order without appreciating the matter in issue in its correct perspective. The report of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga as per letter no. 706 dated 30th of December 1999 vide Annexure-7 states clearly that petitioners were not allowed to mark the regular attendance register and with the result, they were marking the attendance register separately with the approval of previous Secretary of the school. In the said report, it was also clearly stated that on enquiry it was found that these petitioners were attending the school and discharging their duty. The additional ground to assail the impugned (sic--Order?) is that the same is passed on the behest of the respondent no. 6, who happens to be the in-charge Headmistress of the school, in question, who used to furnish incorrect information about the petitioners. The attention of the court is drawn to the letter dated 16th of August 1999 Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents no. 5 and 6, in order to show that the teachers, namely, Ashok Kumar Jha and Pankaj Kumar Jha, against whom the report is that they used to attend the school often and even then, their names were mentioned in the category of the teachers, who were regularly doing the job vide letter dated 10th of May 2006, written by the respondent no. 5 as contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit.