Ram Pramod Rai v. The Director , Secondary Education -Cum-Special Secretary

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma For the State : Mr. Abhinay Raj, AC to AAG II ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 ORAL ORDER 5 18-07-2012 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have perused the records of this case. This writ application was initially filed for directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 27.7.2009 in view of the liberty granted to him by order dated 13.7.2009 passed in L.P.A. No. 660 of 2009 by a Division Bench of this Court. However, during the pendency of this application final order has been passed by the respondent no. 2, the Director, Secondary Education - cum – Special Secretary. The petitioner had filed I.A. No. 8826 of 2010 seeking leave to challenge the aforesaid order dated 15.9.2010 which has been appended as Annexure 9 to the interlocutory application concerned. That prayer had been allowed on

13.12.2011. In view of the nature of the order which would be passed in this Court it would be appropriate to discuss brief facts of this case. The petitioner claims to have been appointed and posted at the post of Orderly in Balbhadra High School, Bhabhangawa in the district of Sitamarhi vide Annexure 1 dated 6th July 1984. However, it appears that vide Annexure 4 dated 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012

27.8.1997 the service of the petitioner along with other 4 persons had been terminated. The petitioner and other 4 persons challenged the order of termination by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8650/1997 which was disposed of on 16.1.2009 by this Court. The order has been appended as Annexure 5. However, from perusal of the order it appears that so far the petitioner was concerned a permission was sought to withdraw the writ application to ventilate the grievance before the appropriate authority itself. The prayer was allowed and the writ application was dismissed as withdrawn so far the petitioner no. 1, i.e., the petitioner of the present case was concerned. Thereafter, M.J.C. No. 998 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for modification of the aforesaid order taking a ground that there was no instruction given to the counsel on the part of the petitioner to withdraw the writ application and the same had been erroneously done by the learned counsel who had appeared for him. However, this limb of argument was not accepted by this Court and the M.J.C. No. 988 of 2009 was rejected except allowing certain clerical modification. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred L.P.A. No. 660 of 2009 but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate authority on all the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 permissible grounds including the ground that the earlier writ application with regard to others has been allowed. For better appreciation it would be pertinent to quote passage of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench: “At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays to withdraw this appeal so that as per liberty granted by order dated 16th of January, 2009 this appellant may ventilate his grievance before appropriate authority on all the permissible grounds including the ground that writ petition of others has been allowed. In view of the aforesaid prayer, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid” The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent no. 2 who had evidently passed the impugned order rejecting his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that there is no evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner that his case is on similar footing to those writ petitioners whose writ application has been allowed vide Annexure 5. It is submitted that it was not at all in dispute that the petitioner’s service was terminated along with the other four persons on self same ground which would be apparent from Annexure 4 as well would also emanate from the letter dated 30.4.1997 (Annexure – 3 ) issued 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 under the signature of the then Director, Secondary Education – cum Special Secretary, Bihar, wherein he had considered the inquiry report regarding the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner and other six persons. Relevant passages from the Annexure 3 are reproduced as under: (cid:222)3- Jh flag ds inLFkkiu dky esa fcuk fu;kstuky; ls uke ekaxs fcuk foKkiu fudkys rFkk fcuk iSuy cuk, vkj{k.k ds fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, fuEukfdr O;fDr;ksa dks muds uke ds lkeus vafdr fo|ky; esa vkns”kiky ds in ij vfu;fer fu;qfDr dh xbZ gS %& 1- Jh fprjatu flag xksdqy txr mPp fo|ky; uVokjk 2- Jh foUns”ojh izlkn flag & Jh y{eh mPp fo|ky;] lhrke<+hA ih& 2&3115@82 3- Jh gfj ukjk;.k flag & mPp fo|ky;] [kMdk ih&3&tw0&82 4- Jh jes”kpUnz flag lqUnjh jkekorkj m0fo0] cfj;kjiqj 5- Jh lhrkjke eaMy Jh gfjoa”k mPp fo|ky;] fo’.kqiqj] oklqnsoA 6- Jh jke izeksn jk; cyHknz mPp fo|ky;] cHkuxkWokA tkWp inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnukuqlkj Jh fprjatu flag dh fu;qfDr i=kad 2641&43 fnukad 22 ebZ 82 ls Jh foUns”ojh izlkn flag dh fu;qfDr 2817&19 fnukad 31-5-82 }kjk Jh gfjukjk;.k flag dh fu;qfDr 2866 fnukad 3-6-82 }kjk Jh jes”kpUnz flag dh fu;qfDr 5176&78 rFkk Jh lhrkjke eaMy dh fu;qfDr 1050&52 fnukad 31-1-83 }kjk Jh flag ds inLFkkiu dky esa gqbZ gS tks fcuk izf(cid:216);k ds ikyu fd;s ,oa fcuk fu;kstuky; ls uke ekax dh xbZ gSA(cid:222) Therefore, it is urged that the case of petitioner being at par with the other persons was not at all in controversy and that would be admitted one which is apparent from the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 records of the proceeding drawn against all six persons including the petitioner as has been stated above. In above view of the matter learned counsel submits that the order is fit to be quashed and this writ application should also be allowed in terms of order dated 16.1.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8650/1997 with respect to other four similarly situate persons. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated that the petitioner was illegally and unauthorisedly appointed on the post of Clerk. However, the same is a typographical error as it is submitted by the parties that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Orderly and not on the post of Clerk. A stand has also been taken that the appointment letter itself discloses that the petitioner had been illegally appointed without getting his name through employment exchange. However, from perusal of order dated 16.1.2009 of this Court as contained in Annexure 5 as well as Annexure 3 it would appear that the services of other four persons, i.e., the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 of the earlier writ application were also terminated on the self same ground which has been noticed by this Court in the earlier proceeding but, the orders were 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 quashed so far affecting the aforesaid petitioners. The relevant passages of the order dated 16.1.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8650/1997 are reproduced as under: “In application, petitioners have challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 1579 dated 27th of August 1997 (Annexure-5) whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they were appointed without following the due procedures laid appointments. The petitioners were appointed on the post of peon by the then District Education Officer, Sitamarhi terms of appointments letter contained in Annexure -2 series in the year between 1982 to June

1983. It is submitted that the action of the authorities terminating services are arbitrary, illegal and without appreciating the correct facts. However, notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that in terms of the orders issued by the Director, (Secondary Education)-Cum- Special Secretary, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2), the services of the petitioners were terminated vide their letter no. 605 dated 30th of April as contained in Annexure- R4-A annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 respondent no. 4. In the similar situation, one Chitranjan Singh was similarly appointed alongwith the petitioners and his services was also sought to be terminated in terms of the aforementioned Annexure- R4-A. The services, on being terminated, the said Chitranjan Singh filed a writ application in this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1977 of 1999. This court allowed the writ application and quashed the order of termination by order dated 23rd of June 2000. The matter was taken up in appeal against the aforesaid order vide L.P.A. No. 1339 of 2000 and the same was dismissed on 25.10.2000. While considering the matter, observed as follows :- “Admittedly, the respondent came in employment in the year 1982 and steps were taken for his removal from service in 1998. The respondent continued in service for about 16 years. Even if its is accepted that there was some illegality and irregularity in the initial appointment of the respondent, the fact remains that he continued in service for 16 years on the post of peon”. x x x x x x Considering the submission of the parties and the pleadings in the light of the order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 1977 of 1999 which was allowed on 23rd of June 2000 as well as 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 judgement dated 25.10.2000 passed in L.P.A. No. 1339 of 2000 affirming the order, I am of the opinion that petitioners also deserve the similar relief as granted by this court in C.W. J.C. No. 1977 of 1999 in the case of Citranjan Singh as referred to the above. Accordingly the office order contained in memo no. 1579 dated 27th of August 1997 as contained in Annexure-5 so far it relates to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is quashed. The writ application accordingly disposed of.” Upon consideration of rival submission this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the State has not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner from other four persons with respect to whom the aforesaid writ application has been allowed. As a result, considering the submission of the parties and the decision of this Court as aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court this petitioner also deserves the similar relief as has been granted to others in the aforesaid writ application. Accordingly, the order dated 15.9.2010 as well as the order contained in memo no. 1579 dated 27.8.1997, so far it concerns to the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside. So far the consequential relief to the petitioner is 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2010 (5) dt.18-07-2012 concerned, it is made clear that whatsoever consequential relief has been granted by the State authorities to the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 of C.W.J.C. No. 8650/1997, the petitioner would also be entitled for the same. This writ application stands allowed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/-