Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 488 (PAT)

Naveen Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-28

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order issued vide memo no. 862 dated 29.6.2000 as contained in Annexure 5 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. 3. The dispute in this writ application relates to the validity of appointment of the petitioner on class IV post. According to the case of the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarput vide letter no. 10905 dated 16.9.1992 asked for certain names from the employment exchange of eligible candidates as several posts were lying vacant. The employment exchange accordingly forwarded names of eligible candidates having pre-requisite qualifications. Name of the petitioner was also sent by the employment exchange and the establishment committee headed by Regional Deputy Director of Education after following due procedures of law, issued appointment letter vide memo no. 105 dated 26.6.95 to the petitioner for the post of Orderly Peon in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Paroo in the district of Muzaffarpur.The petitioner, thereafter joined the post and he was adjusted on the same post in the same pay scale in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Motipur vide memo no. 9526 dated 30.12.1996. The petitioner there-after worked on the post, in the meantime, the appointment of the petitioner appears to have been doubted and accordingly a show cause notice was given to him which he replied stating all the relevant facts that he was appointed in accordance with law and by order impugned, now he has been terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was duly selected by the Establishment Committee on the basis of names recommended by the employment exchange and, therefore, it would not be proper for the authorities to say that he was appointed by back door method or he obtained appointment on the basis of forged documents. It is further submitted that circular as referred in the impugned order vide letter no. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 has no application in this case and the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post in mufassil office of the Education department. 5. It is further submitted that circular as referred in the impugned order vide letter no. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 has no application in this case and the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post in mufassil office of the Education department. 5. A counter affidavit earlier was filed on behalf of the state stating therein that no document whatsoever was available in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to show that the petitioner was appointed after following due procedure but subsequently an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 stating in paragraph 3 of it that the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner from the office of the deponent but the same appears to be forged and fabricated one. At the same time, they also acknowledged the order of posting of the petitioner in Motipur block as contained in Annexure 2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner since was appointed after following the procedures of law, his appointment cannot be said to be bad in law. It is further submitted that like matters were heard by this court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 7025 of 2000, 1481 of 2001 and 6609 of 2000 and its analogous cases and the orders of termination have been quashed. It is also submitted that some of the orders of termination of like nature have been quashed by this court in writ jurisdiction and the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been upheld in Letters Patent Appeal. A mention is being made of L.P.A. No. 1245 of 2002 in this context. The orders passed by this court have been produced before me for my perusal and the facts of this case appear to be identical to that of those cases. More so, in view of the affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur as referred to above where he acKnowledges the fact that the appointment letter was issued from his office and the order as contained in Annexure 2 is in existence, now the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be forged one. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the order of termination as contained in Annexure 5 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his substantive post. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the order of termination as contained in Annexure 5 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his substantive post. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for salary for the period he has actually not worked. 8. No costs.