DEO NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the order dated 11th of November, 1999 (Annexure-12) whereby the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher has been terminated.

(2.) Facts necessary for the decision of the present writ application are that by order dated 15th of June, 1985 (Annexure 1), petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric untrained scale and posted at Government Basic School, Dharampur, in the district of Samastipur. Lateron, by order dated 3rd of June, 1989 (Annexure 3), services of 26 teachers were terminated which included Nirmala Sinha, Suresh Chandra Jha, Ramprit Thakur, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Md. Ashfaque, Renu Kumari, Mahboob Alam, Amir Chandra Manjhu, Abdul Karim, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Ujagar Mahto, Quamruzzaman and Amrendra Bahadur as also the petitioner. Petitioner, Deo Nath Singh, aggrieved by the same, preferred CWJC No. 6469 of 1989 before this Court. It seems that in view of stay order passed by this Court by order dated 7th of February, 1990 (Annexure 5), petitioner was re-instated in service till further orders. The writ application filed by the petitioner ultimately came up for consideration and by order dated 24.6.1991 (Annexure 4), the order terminating his service was quashed on the ground that before doing so, petitioner was not given opportunity. However, writ application filed by other persons remained pending and CWJC No. 6543 of 1989, Ramesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Ors., and CWJC No. 6577 of 1989; Amirchand Manjhi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., were disposed of by common order dated 7th of August, 1997 (Annexure 10), inter alia, observing as follows :

(3.) Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the persons enumerated above having been appointed in the same manner as those persons. He points out that in view of the observation of this Court in CWJC No. 6543 of 1989 and analogous cases, (Annexure 10) Assistant Teachers whose services were terminated along with the petitioner, have been allowed to continue in service, whereas the service of the petitioner has been terminated and for that only justification is that his case was taken up by this Court earlier, whereas the case of other persons similarly situated were taken up later. In such circumstance, he points out that the termination of the service of the petitioner shall be wholly inequitable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2004 (3) PLJR 142, and my attention has been drawn to para 7 of the judgment which reads as follows :