Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1037 (PAT)

Shailendra Kumar Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-05

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 10 dated 3.2.1997, issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, the petitioner was appointed as part time instructor in the year 1988 in Zila School, Motihai after following the procedures of appointment and thereafter he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the same school by the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a vacant post with effect from 20th March, 1990 and while the petitioner was functioning on the post of Assistant Teacher his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 16.2.1991, which subsequently was recalled vide letter dated 11.11.1991 and thereafter the petitioner continued and now by the impugned order dated 3.2.1997 he has been terminated on the basis of certain directions issued by this Court in CWJC No. 11913 of 1992, as contained in Annexure 9, Dr. Jha, learned senior counsel, further submitted that the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 9, was challenged in this Court in LPA No. 297 of 1997, which, ultimately, was allowed vide order dated 22.7.2003, as contained in Annexure 11, setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10404 of 1995. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal, as referred to above, the whole basis for termination of the services of the petitioner became non-existent, and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but no cogent reason has been shown for termination of the services of the petitioner save and except as per the direction of this Court, as referred to above. In the counter affidavit, however it is not stated as to whether the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal has been challenged in the Apex Court. 5. From Annexure 10, it is manifest that at the initial stage, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 16.2.1991. In the counter affidavit, however it is not stated as to whether the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal has been challenged in the Apex Court. 5. From Annexure 10, it is manifest that at the initial stage, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 16.2.1991. However, in light of direction of the Department, as contained in memo No. 787 dated 11.11.1991 he was again put back in services and only when certain directions were issued in CWJC No. 10404 of 1995 the petitioner was terminated from services on the basis of the observation made by this Court. No other reason is discernible at the face of the order impugned for termination of the services of the petitioner and the only reason, on which basis the petitioner was terminated, was the direction issued by this Court. 6. Since by subsequent order dated 22.7.2003 in LPA No. 279 of 1997 this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ jurisdiction, in my opinion, the petitioners termination would not be sustainable in law. 7. Dr. Jha, learned senior counsel, at last pointed out that many other persons similarly situated, who were terminated from services, have been put back in services except the petitioner. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, order impugned, contained in Annexure 10, is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his post with all his consequential benefits. No order as to costs.