Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1042 (PAT)

Dipak Kumar Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-06

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Substantially, the petitioner is challenging the order, as contained in annexure 10, and also the order, as contained in annexure 11 to I.A. No. 40460 of 2005. 3. Vide order, as contained in annexure 10, the representation of the petitioner to approve his appointment on the post of clerk in the office of Sub-divisional Education Officer, Bagaha has been rejected and vide order, as contained in annexure 11, appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Kumarbag Government High School in the district of West Champaran, has been cancelled and he was appointed on the post of clerk. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the authorities were not satisfied to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk, the petitioner could have been allowed to work as Assistant Teacher, as appointed by the authorities vide order, as contained in annexure 12. 5. It appears that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondent concerned to approve his appointment on the post of Clerk in C.W.J.C. No. 6920 of 1999. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of vide order, as contained in annexure 5, directing the petitioner to represent his case before the authorities. However, this Court while disposing of the writ application observed: "It is admitted fact that the petitioner was posted in a place, where the post of clerk was not vacant. At the same time, it also appears to me as to under what circumstances the petitioner was appointed on the post of a clerk without following the procedures laid down for such appointment." 6. The petitioner, as it appears, ini-tially was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, vide order dated 3.9.1990, as contained in annexure 12, on temporary basis. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher subsequently was cancelled by the same authority vide order, as contained in annexure 11, and he was appointed on the post of clerk on temporary basis. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in no way, could satisfy the Court as to the mode of the appointment of the petitioner either on the post of Assistant Teacher or on the post of Clerk. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in no way, could satisfy the Court as to the mode of the appointment of the petitioner either on the post of Assistant Teacher or on the post of Clerk. Prima facie, appointments of the petitioner were made by the Regional Deputy Director of Education without following the well known procedures laid down in law. It further appears that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher was cancelled vide order dated 16.6.1995, but the same was never challenged before this Court and now a grievance is being made to retain him on the post of Assistant Teacher, as appointed by the authorities vide order, as contained in annexure 12. 8. This Court had earlier noticed in annexure 5 that appointment of the petitioner even on the post of Clerk was not against a sanctioned post nor procedures of law were followed. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in a most mechanical manner by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, who had no authority to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher or as Clerk without following the procedures of law. 10. At last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two similarly situated persons have been retained in services. It is also submitted that the salary legally payable to the petitioner has not been paid. 11. No material, whatsoever, has been produced before this Court to justify the appointment of the petitioner either on the post of Assistant Teacher or on the post of Clerk. 12. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, even if some other persons have been retained in services, in my opinion, illegality so committed should not be allowed to perpetuate, as it would defeat the ends of justice. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I find no material at all to grant any equitable relief to the petitioner in exercise of my extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. It is, accordingly, dismissed.