Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 491 (JHR)

Binay Kumar Jain v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-14

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Order The petitioner was appointed in the School by the Managing Committee and his appointment was approved by the then District Education Officer, Giridih. The petitioner, thereafter, had been working continuously for about 14 years and he was paid salary without any objection. After 14 years, his service was terminated. The petitioner moved this Court against the said removal order in W.P.(S) No.2848 of 2004. This Court by order dated 3.8.2006 set aside the order of removal on the ground of non-observance of the principle of natural justice giving liberty to the respondents to initiate an appropriate action if they so desire. Taking advantage of the said liberty, the District Education Officer, Giridih again removed the petitioner from service by issuing impugned Memo No.641 dated 30.3.2010. The only ground given in the impugned order is that the petitioner could not bring any evidence to show that there were two sanctioned posts of clerk in the school in question and that one clerk was already working against the sanctioned post. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the school in question is a minority school and the Managing Committee of the School is the appointing authority. They have never raised any objection against the appointment of the petitioner. No such report was ever given by the Management that the petitioner has been working illegally. He further submitted that suo motu issuance of such order passed by the District Education Officer is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee -being the competent authority to appoint -and the approval was accorded duly by the District Education Officer vide annexure-3 and 4/1 respectively as far back as in 1996-97. Learned J.C. to Sr.S.C.I appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petitioner's prayer and supported the impugned order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 4. It is an admitted fact that the P.N.D. Jain High School, Isri Bazar, Giridih is a minority school. The Managing Committee of the School is the appointing authority. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the said School long back in the year 1996. His appointment was also approved by the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer. The petitioner was allowed to work for about 14 years and he was paid salary. The Managing Committee of the School is the appointing authority. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the said School long back in the year 1996. His appointment was also approved by the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer. The petitioner was allowed to work for about 14 years and he was paid salary. I see no occasion for initiating any such proceeding against the petitioner after 14 years. The allegation is that the petitioner has working against a non-sanctioned post, but no document has been produced on behalf of the respondents in support of the said fact. The question has never been raised by the school authority or the petitioner. If any such assertion is made by the respondents, onus is on them to prove the same by bringing on record the authentic document. It is nobody's case that the petitioner has obtained the appointment by playing fraud or on any misrepresentation. 5. In view of the above, I see no legal justification for issuing Annexure-9 and removing the petitioner from his service. That tool, when the earlier order of dismissal has been quashed by this Court. Liberty was given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with rules and by observing the principle of natural justice. The respondents have not produced any such rule to justify the action taken against the petitioner. 6. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, thus, wholly arbitrary and perverse and is hereby quashed. Since the termination order has been quashed, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service without any break and is entitled to get salary and other consequential benefits. The arrears thereof shall be paid to the petitioner within three months. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.