AWADESH KUMAR CHOUDHRY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question which arises for determination in this case is:

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that in response to an for the posts of Assistant Teachers in different Elementary Schools in the erstwhile district of Santhal Parganas published in the newspaper on 7 -4 -1981 under the signature of District Superintendent of education Santhal Parganas, these petitioners and Ors. submitted their applications They were eventually interviewed by the District Establishment Committee of the Santhal Parganas in between 17th and 19th September, 1J the Committee prepared a panel for appointment known as 'Waiting Soon thereafter the erstwhile district of Santhal Parganas was split into four districts, namely, Dumka, Sahebganj, Gudda and Deoghar. Alter the creation of these districts some candidates whose names figured in the said panel were appointed for the various Elementary Schools of me District of Dumka and a list of some of the candidates of that panel was forwarded to respondent No. 5 Bhola Ram, who was then the district Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj. In due course respondent No. 5 issued appointment letters (Annexure I series) to the petitioners and posted them to different elementary schools within the district Sahebganj. The petitioners joined their respective posts and were getting their salary till October, 1983, after which the payment was suddenly stopped for the reason not disclosed t them. There was an agitation against this stoppage and eventually the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar issued wireless message on 22 -2 -1984 directing the authorities to make payment of salaries to them, whereupon a direction was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj to make payment but still no payment was made to them. Being aggrieved, some of the teachers moved this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to pay the salary until they were legally terminated. In the meantime, a letter No. 2836, dated 13th September, 1984 (Annexure -4) was issued by the State (respondent No. 10 for cancelling the appointment made to respondent No. 5) excepting these teachers who were appointed by me State in the reserved quota of handicapped and those appointed on compassionate grounds. In continuation of this letter the State Government issued another latter No. 3103, dated 13 -1984 (Annexure 4/1) directing the District Superintendents of Education to terminate the services or an the teachers whose names appeared in the list enclosed thereto. In pursuance of this direction the District Superintendent of Education issued letters, dated 18 -1 -1985 (Annexure 2 series) to different teachers separately terminating their services after giving them one month's notice. It is these letters of termination of services of the petitioners that is under challenge in this writ application. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the termination of their services is illegal, inasmuch as no notice to show cause was Issued to them nor any enquiry regarding legality or illegality of their appointments was made in their presence. It has also been alleged that the termination of their services is discriminatory inasmuch as the teachers similarly appointed in the district of Dumka have been allowed to continue, whereas the services of the teachers appointed in the district of Sahebganj have been terminated, although both sets of teachers were appointed from the same panel prepared for the erstwhile district of Santhal Parganas.

(3.) The St -ate bas filed a counter -affidavit in which it has been stated that the appointments of the petitioners were purely temporary and their services could be terminated without any notice, but even then they were given one month's notice. The course adopted by the State is quite legal as the termination of the services of the petitioners is 'termination simplifiers and no stigma of any kind Is attached thereto. Nothing has been said against the conduct of petitioners in the termination letters and hence there was no necessity of issuing a separate notice to them for showing cause against their termination and as such they cannot call in aw the violation of the principles od natural justice. It has been averred that plea of the violation of the principle of natural justice cannot be available to the petitioners in such a situation. Regarding the facts stated in the writ petition about the appointment of the petitioners it has been stated on behalf of the State that no record is available In the office which could show that the petitioners were interviewed and a waiting list was prepared by the Establishment Committee excepting with regard to the science Candidates in respect of whom a panel was prepared but this panel was also not approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Sahebganj who returned the panel to the District Superintendent of Education (for meeting certain objections. It has been asserted that the names or the petitioners did not find place in any panel, much less in any approved panel. It has further been averred that none of the petitioners possesses the minimum qualification for appointment, as none of them was trained which was the minimum requirement for the appointment as a teacher. It is also the stand of the State that no panel was sent to the regional Deputy Director of Education for scrutiny and the Commissioner of the division approval as required by the Government Notification, deed 15 -12 -1981, according to which the panel prepared by the District Establishment Committee has to be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, who, after scrutiny, has to send the came to the Divisional Commissioner for approval and it is only after the latter's approval that me appointment can be made by District Superintendent of Education from the approved list in order of seniority in the list. In this background it has been contended that the alleged appointment of the petitioners are wholly illegal and there was no appointment at all In the eye of law It has been asserted that their alleged appointment letters are forged and fabricated documents. In this connections it has farther been pointed out that respondent No. 5, who Is said to have issued these appointment letters was put under suspension for his various acts of omissions and commissions In the matter of appointment of teachers while he was posted 222 so being Prosecuted for offences Under Ss. 465, 468, 49, 420, 567 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Regarding the allegation of discrimination it has been stated that no teacher appointed in the district of Dumka by aforesaid Bhola Ram, Hari Karain Thakur and Narain Jha have been allowed to continue in the district of Dumka and only those teachers have been allowed to continue in respect of whom an injunction order has been passed by this Court against their termination.