STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the Government Counsel, we are of the view that the L.P.A. is wholly misconceived and frivolous. As a matter of fact, the District Education Officer, by passing the order dated 17th October, 2000 has tried to over -reach the earlier order of this Court dated 17th March, 1990. By the order dated 17th October, 2000, he held that the very appointment of the respondent on ad hoc basis was illegal. If that were so, the order dated 17th March, 1990 would not have been passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 5120 of 1989. wherein the petitioner challenged his termination with effect from 25th April, 1989.

(2.) IT is pertinent to notice that the present respondent approached this Court by filing writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 5120 of 1989 for quashing the order dated 9th May, 1989, whereby his services were sought to be terminated with effect from 25th April, 1989. This Court disposed of the writ petition by the following order: - "This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing an order dated 9.5.89 by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated with effect from 25.4.89. It appears that the petitioners were appointed in Project Girls High School on Class -III and IV posts by the then District Education Officer on the condition that they shall continue till the regular appointments against the posts in question. According to the petitioners before regular appointments could be made, their services have been terminated by the impugned order. As admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed by way of ad hoc arrangement it is not possible for this Court to issue any specific direction or order. However, the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners that till the regular appointments are made against the posts, the petitioners should have been allowed to continue as per initial order. We may point out that if the petitioners have worked during the period from 25.4.89 to 9.5.90, when their services were terminated then they are entitled to payment in accordance with law. In such a situation there was no occasion to cancet their appointments with retrospective effect so as to debar them from receiving payment for the period for which they have worked. Any such decision should be taken preferably with two months from the date of production of this order." As a matter of fact, Single Judge rightly set aside the order of the District Education Officer, West Champaran passed on 17th October, 2000 as he simply acted in utter defiance and disregard of the earlier order of this Court passed on 17th March, 1990. The conduct of District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah is hightly reprehensible.

(3.) THE consideration of the matter by the Single Judge is in the right perspective, justifying no interference by us.