KISTU PRASAD DEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PETITIONERS father Late Mahadeo Prasad Deo was working as Assistant Teacher in a Secondary School, Lakhauria and died in harness on 24.12.1978. The petitioner as also his mother applied for compassionate appointment some where in the year 1986. The petitioner was engaged as a Peon on 1.2.1986. The respondents sought for no objection from the side of the petitioners mother and pursuant to that, the mother of the petitioner filed an application before the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar conveying no objection for appointment of his son. Later on the Principal of the School made an application before the District Education Officer, Deoghar on 26.7.1986 for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Pursuant to the letter made by the Principal of the School, District Education Officer, Deoghar vide his letter dated 31.7.1986 accorded the approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Peon. The matter was referred to the District Establishment Committee for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that after following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was appointed and he continued in service since 1st February, 1986. This averment made in para 9 of the petition has not been seriously disputed in the reply filed by the respondents. On the other hand it is stated that the Principal of the said school had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner. It was only in the year 2001 that the impugned letter No. 1002 dated 24.12.2001 came to be issued by the District Education Officer, Deoghar and communicated to the petitioner by the Principal of the School vide letter dated 25th August, 2002 and on the basis of the impugned letter vide order dated 31st of December, 2001 the petitioner has been removed from service by the Headmaster on 5th September, 2002. Both these letters are under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner continued in service for a period of about 16 years. Even the circular relied upon by the respondents was in operation during this period but no action whatever was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is now seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 31st December, 2001 having been passed without holding any enquiry and even without putting him to notice or seeking his explanation or for that matter deciding the issue in consonance with the principle of natural justice in any manner.