SACHCHIDANAND SINGH, YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH AND AFZAL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this writ application as originally made, was for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners, which has remained unpaid, since 17.09.2005. By a subsequent amendment to the writ application, a further prayer was added for quashing the order, whereby the services of the petitioners was terminated as contained in Annexure -13 series to the writ application.

(2.) HEARD Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to G.P. IV, for the Respondent -State.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of termination, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ground taken by the Respondents for terminating the services of the petitioners purportedly on the basis of the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005, is totally misconceived and misleading, as because the judgment in the aforesaid L.P.A., rendered on 01.05.2006, has no bearing whatsoever with the case of the present petitioners as because it is a judgment passed long after the appointment of the petitioners and after acceptance of their Joining Reports. In any case, the Respondents cannot apply the judgment retrospectively to the case of the petitioners. Learned Counsel adds further that no enquiry was held by the Respondents before canceling their regular appointments and such cancellation of their appointments is violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel adds further that even if the initial appointment of the petitioners claimed to have been given under the reserved category and if it is considered that the petitioners were not entitled for appointment in the reserved category, the claim of the petitioners under the General category cannot be denied to them. In support of his contention, learned Counsel would want to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave - versus -Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar.