BINAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the School by the Managing Committee and his appointment was approved by the then District Education Officer, Giridih. The petitioner, thereafter, had been working continuously for about 14 years and he was paid salary without any objection. After 14 years, his service was terminated. The petitioner moved this Court against the said removal order in W.P. (S) No. 2848 of 2004. This Court by order dated 3.8.2006 set aside the order of removal on the ground of non-observance of the principle of natural justice giving liberty to the respondents to initiate an appropriate action if they so desire. Taking advantage of the said liberty, the District Education Officer, Giridih again removed the petitioner from service by issuing impugned Memo No. 641 dated 30.3.2010. The only ground given in the impugned order is that the petitioner could not bring any evidence to show that there were two sanctioned posts of clerk in the school in question and that one clerk was already working against the sanctioned post.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the school in question is a minority school and the Managing Committee of the School is the Appointing Authority. They have never raised any objection against the appointment of the petitioner. No such report was ever given by the Management that the petitioner has been working illegally. He further submitted that suo motu issuance of such order passed by the District Education Officer is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee being the competent authority to appoint and the approval was accorded duly by the District Education Officer vide Annexures-3 and 4/1 respectively as far back as in 1996-97.

(3.) Learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.I appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petitioner's prayer and supported the impugned order.