VIJOY BAHADUR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder his services have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was illegal.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute is that the petitioner was appointed on a post of Clerk in +2 Secondary School by an order dated 3rd May, 1989 by the District Education Officer, Begusarai pursuant to direction of the Deputy Director of Education in his letter dated 2.5.1989. The petitioner claims that thereafter he had been continued in service and his name was included in the Gradation List of the Clerks of High Schools of the District of Begusarai dated 22.3.1994 and that for almost for a period of five years there was no impediment in his functioning but his payment of salary was suddenly stopped from the month of September, 1995 under order of the District Education Officer, Begusarai dated 20.9.1995 on the ground of some illegality in his appointment. The petitioner has stated that when his salary was not paid for more than 3 years he had filed C.W.J.C. No. 11338 of 1998 and during pendency of this writ application, his payment of salary was made from January, 1999 onwards, as is recorded in the order dated 19.11.1999 disposing of the writ application of the petitioner, being C.W.J.C. No. 1138 of 1998. It is however, the case of the petitioner that soon after, releasing payment of salary from the month of January, 1999 an enquiry was undertaken by the Director, Secondary Education with regard to the validity of his appointment and he was asked to file his show cause under the order of the Director, Secondary Education contained in Memo No. 1595 dated 21.7.1999. The petitioner claims that he had appeared before the Director, Secondary Education and has filed his show cause reply taking a plea that his appointment was wholly legal and justified and need no interference. The impugned order, however, was passed by the Director, Secondary Education on 27.6.2000 holding that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and as such his services were to be terminated from the date of the order i.e. 27.6.2000.

(3.) IN this context, he has relied on the orders of this Court dated 18.7.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 111 of 2001 Abhay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and the order dated 10.3.2004 in L.P.A. No. 328 of 2004 Ed. -Reported in 2004(3) PLJR 173 in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Abhay Kumar. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an order dated 17.5.2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 13961 of 2003, 11313 of 2003 & 14462 of 2003 in the case of Ram Jeevan Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Subodh Kumar Singh vs. State and Ors., Mithilesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and the order dated 28.11.2006 in L.P.A. No. 481 of 2005, L.P.A. No. 484 of 2005, L.P.A. No. 494 of 2005 State of Bihar vs. Subodh Kumar Singh, L.P.A. No. 484 of 2005, The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ram Jeevan Kumar, and L.P.A. No. 494 of 2005, The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Mithilesh Kumar Mishra. On the strength of all these orders, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when similarly situated Class -III and Class -IV employees of Begusarai District were removed from service on the ground that there initial appointment was bad, this Court had interfered by setting aside the impugned order which has been affirmed by this Court in the appeal filed by the State of Bihar as also by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. No. 27412 of 2004 by the Apex Court vide order dated 27.3.2006. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore has submitted that the case of the petitioner being identical, he should also be given the same relief and this Court should quash the impugned order of termination for reinstatement of service of the petitioner.