DEVKI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL petitioner Ram Bilash Prasad @ Ram Bilash Yadav is dead and this application is being persued by his legal representative. Expression petitioner in this judgment shall mean the original petitioner.

(2.) THE year 1981 was declared as International year for handicapped and the State Government took a policy decision to appoint handicapped persons in class III posts including post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools. In pursuance of the said decision, steps were taken for appointment of handicapped persons and ultimately by notification dated 28th March, 1982 (annexure 3) petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher. Later on his service was terminated and aggrieved by the same he filed CWJC no. 8662/91 before this court. Aforesaid writ application alongwith other writ applications were taken up together and Division Bench of this court by order dated 28th June, 1995 (Annexure 5) disposed of the writ applications with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate final orderwithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the Deputy Director Secondary Education vide its letter dated 12.1.95 wrote to the District Superintendent of Education to get the petitioner examined by a Medical Board and to forward the certificate to him. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner was examined by Medical Board and the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Munger in its memo dated 23.2.96 (annexure 7) certified that petitioner disability is to the extent of 55 per cent. It seems that petitioner was again subjected to medical examination in which his disability was found to the extent of more than 40 percent.

(3.) MR . Sanjeev Ranjan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher, taking into account his disability from amongst the persons belonging to the handicapped category. Thereafter his service was terminated on the ground that he is not handicap as he did not appear for medical examination when called upon to do. When a chalienge was made to the order terminating the service, this court directed the respondents to pass appropriate final order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Respondents took three years to pass final order and instead of reinstating him in service by order dated 22.9.98, he was reappointed. He points out that reappointment of the petitioner has ied to serious civil consequences as the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of service rendered by him prior to termination of the service and has also not been given salary for the period he remained out of employment because of illegal termination of service.