MANI KANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing office order dated 29.08.2011 whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f 30.08.2011 and for declaration that the action of the respondents in initiation of departmental proceeding and passing order of termination against the petitioner is ab initio void.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by Municipal Education Project Committee, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and after going through the selection process, a merit list was prepared and vide decision dated 14.04.1975 four persons were appointed and it was decided, as and when vacancy would arise the name of the candidates shall be recommended for appointment. It has been averred that since the name of the petitioner was in panel, he represented before Chairman, Madhupur Municipality, accordingly, appointment letter was issued in favour of petitioner vide memo dated 03.09.1975 as Matric Science Teacher at Amar Sanskrit Unch Prathmik Vidyalaya, Madhupur and vide same memo another candidate Paresh Chandra Jha, was appointed initially for the period of three months, which was extended from time to time for the same period. However, later on, the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 01.07.1976 to the scale of Middle Trained Teacher. It has further been averred after serving more than three and half decades, all of a sudden vide letter dated 06.01.2009, two members committee was constituted to enquire into the matter of appointment of petitioner, accordingly, enquiry report was submitted finding the appointment of the petitioner void ab initio and accordingly, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order of dismissal from services.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner happens to be the District President of Teachers' Association, the District Superintendent of Education has got bias against the petitioner and submitted its report against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that after 36 years of initial appointment, the respondents have alleged that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio whereas the petitioner has been regularized in the year 1976 as per Annexure 6 to the writ application.