LAWS(PAT)-2008-4-100

SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 11, 2008
Satyendra Narayan Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has come up for hearing after an order of remand passed in L.P.A. No. 1237 of 1999. and analogous cases.

(2.) THIS particular case arises out of L.P.A. No. 326 of 2005. This Division Bench while remanding this matter noticed that while allowing the writ petition the learned Single Judge had not given details regarding the facts of the case and allowed the case on the basis of the order passed in CWJC No. 5003 of 1999. The petitioner is aggrieved by order contained in memo no. 772, dated 4.7.2000 passed by respondent Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

(3.) THE petitioner alongwith one Surendra Singh had earlier filed a writ petition in this court vide CWJC No. 338 of 1999 and CWJC No. 403 of 1999 respectively. They had challenged the order, dated 30.11.1989 issued by the Director, Secondary Education wherein a decision was taken that the services of fifty six persons including the petitioner were to be terminated after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners in the writ petition had contended that their appointment was legal and there was no violation of procedures for appointment, it was also submitted that the petitioners had not been issued a show cause before the order of termination was issued. This court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions on 8.3.1999 quashed the order, dated 30.11.1998 and directed that a show cause should be issued to the petitioners before a decision is taken terminating their services. The petitioners after the orders of the court filed a representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education and also personally appeared before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra but he could not get any information or report about the orders passed on his representation until 29.6.2000 and in fact the petitioner alleges that the order was not communicated to him till the 1st week of July, 2000.