Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 745 (JHR)

Uma Kant Fariyat v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-09-17

R.K.MERATHIA

body2007
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. These writ petitions are being disposed off by this common order after hearing the parties at length finally. 2. W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2005 was filed for directing the respondents to confirm the temporary appointment of the petitioners. I.A. No. 1871 of 2005 was filed for amendment of the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.6.2005. By this order, petitioners were removed from service on the ground that their show causes were considered by the District Education Establishment Committee but the same were not found satisfactory. It is further said that the teachers similarly situated with the petitioners, who were illegally appointed in 1981-83, were removed in 1984-85. Then in view of the judgments of Supreme Court (S.L.P. No. 10051/1990) and High Court (C.W.J.C. No. 7000/1992 and analogous cases), a final panel was prepared in 1994 after considering the objections invited. Petitioners cases were rejected and they were not included in the panel and thus they were not reappointed. They could not produce any basis of their claim to continue in service and therefore it was held that they were continuing illegally. Accordingly, they were removed from service with effect from 30.6.2005. It may be noted here that no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioners that they could not be removed during the pendency of the writ petition cannot be accepted, as they had no right to continue, as would appear from the facts and circumstance, noticed herein below. 3. WPS. No. 5630 of 2005 was filed challenging similar orders dated 30.6.2005, passed against the petitioners. With regard to petitioner-Tej Narayan Yadav, the order dated 4.12.1995, passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 24607-24613/95 was referred. 4. In W.P.(S) No. 4637 of 2005, it was further mentioned in the order of removal of the petitioner dated 30.6.2005, that though CWJC No. 407/1995 was disposed of on 13.5.1996 but petitioner-Sant Lal Shah suppressed the order passed in his representations dated 22.5.1996 and 8.2.2005. 5. A large number of persons including the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers without following the legal procedure in the year 1981-82. In the year 1984, it came to the notice of the higher authorities that the said appointments were illegal. Therefore, their services were terminated. 5. A large number of persons including the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers without following the legal procedure in the year 1981-82. In the year 1984, it came to the notice of the higher authorities that the said appointments were illegal. Therefore, their services were terminated. The matter moved up to the Supreme Court and pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the authorities reconsidered the cases of all the applicants and a fresh panel was prepared in 1994 in accordance with law. Initially, district wise and category wise draft panel were prepared and after calling for objections through notice in daily news paper and on receipt of objections, final panel was prepared and published on 25.7.1994. Petitioners were not found fit for selection and therefore their names were not included in the panel. In spite thereof, they continued in service illegally in league and collusion with the officers of the department. Show cause notices were issued to them. Petitioners filed their reply but could not produce any valid document in support of their claim. Accordingly, they have been removed from service. 6. Several writ petitions were filed complaining non compliance of the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court. Finally in the order dated 21.7.1995, passed in a batch of Contempt Petitions being MJC No. 1531 of 1993 the Patna High Court considered all aspects of the matter including the judgments/orders of High Court and Supreme Court passed from time to time and disposed of the Contempt Applications holding inter alia that the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court have been complied. The said order was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 4.12.1995 in S.L.A. (Civil) No. 24007-24013/1999. 7. All the contentions raised by Mr. Singh in these writ petitions specially about non-compliance of the order of the Supreme Court with regard to relaxation of age bar, were considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Girdhari Sah and Ors. . with reference to the judgments/orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court from time to time. It was clearly held that the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court were complied. 8. There is nothing to show that petitioners were appointed after following the legal procedure. . with reference to the judgments/orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court from time to time. It was clearly held that the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court were complied. 8. There is nothing to show that petitioners were appointed after following the legal procedure. They were not selected and included in the final panel which was prepared far back in 1994 after considering the objections Their claim for relaxing the age bar was also rejected in 1996. Petitioners continued illegally, apparently in collusion with the erring officers of the department. They cannot be heard to say that as they have continued for a long period, their case is different from similarly situated persons, who were not reappointed or were removed from service due to non-inclusion of their names in the final panel. Mr. Singh submitted that, as the petitioners were allowed to continue, they did not challenge the final panel prepared in 1994 and the rejection of their claim in 1996 on the ground of over age. Such submission is wholly fallacious and unacceptable. Petitioners had no right to continue, and only because of such illegal continuance, they did not acquire any right. Further, in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it also cannot be accepted that before removing them, a departmental proceeding should have been started. In view of Full Bench Judgment- (1991) 1 BLJR 441 and the Division Bench Judgment-1994 (1) PLJR 68, the rules of natural justice were not required to be followed in such cases. However, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners but they could not show any basis for their continuance in service. When similarly situated persons have not been reappointed or have been removed, petitioners cannot be allowed to continue. The contention of Mr. Singh that these cases are not covered by the judgments of High Court and Supreme Court is also not acceptable. These writ petitions are fully covered by the judgment of Girdhari Sah and Ors. (supra), affirmed in LPA No. 477 of 2003 on 23.8.2004. and then in S.L.A. (Civil No. 1493-1494/2005. by Honble Supreme Court on 31.1.2005. 9. It has been said in the counter affidavit that petitioners continued illegally in league and collusion with the erring officers of the department and there has been suppression of facts, but it is not said as to what action has been taken. and then in S.L.A. (Civil No. 1493-1494/2005. by Honble Supreme Court on 31.1.2005. 9. It has been said in the counter affidavit that petitioners continued illegally in league and collusion with the erring officers of the department and there has been suppression of facts, but it is not said as to what action has been taken. The respondents should identify and take action against the wrong doers in accordance with law. 10. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, no cost is imposed on the petitioners.