Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 951 (PAT)

Kishori Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2014-09-04

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.06.2010 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur whereby the petitioner’s representation filed in compliance of the order dated 08.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13895 of 2001, Reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 588 has been rejected. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that he was appointed as Teacher in Government Basic School along with 42 others by letter dated 15.10.1990 (Annexure-3) issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. He was not a trained teacher and, therefore, in 1994 he was sent for training for one year. This is admitted fact that petitioner could not successfully complete the said training. Subsequently, by an order dated 02.11.2001 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on two grounds. Firstly; that he did not have the B. Ed. qualification or qualification of teacher’s training and secondly, his name was not there in the list of candidates interviewed for the purpose of appointment nor in the merit-list prepared for the purpose of appointment as Teacher in Basic Schools. Prior to issuance of the said order dated 02.11.2001. A show cause notice was issued to him asking his explanation as to why his appointment should not be cancelled for lack of B. Ed. qualification. The order dated 02.11.2001 was challenged before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13895 of 2001 which was allowed by an order dated 08.12.2009. The order of termination dated 02.11.2001 was quashed by this Court on the ground that the reason for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment as contained in the order dated 02.11.2001 that his name was not there in the list of candidates interviewed and in the merit-list was not communicated to the petitioner while issuing show-cause notice. This Court while quashing the said order dated 02.11.2001 made the followed observations:- “It is made clear that respondents will be at liberty to allow the petitioner to join his service and function as a teacher, but shall not pay his salary, arrears or current, till the expiry of four months or till fresh orders are passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, whichever is earlier. In case, fresh orders are passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in favour of the petitioner, petitioner will be entitled to his arrears as well as current salary. Also, in case no orders are passed within four months, petitioner shall be entitled to his salary from the next day of expiry of four months. In case, petitioner files an application for permission to appear in the examination afresh to clear the paper in which he has failed earlier, the respondents shall consider the said application in accordance with law.” 3. Thereupon, the order which is impugned in the present application dated 19.04.2010 came to be passed. It has been indicated in the order that petitioner’s name did not find place in the list of candidates who were interviewed for the purpose of appointment as Teacher in Basic School and his name was not there in the merit-list. The finding of fact to this effect arrived at by Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur is indicative of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in selection process and entered into service through back door. 4. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the fact that his name did not figure in the list of candidates interviewed and in the merit-list. He contends that the petitioner was appointed validly by competent authority and his appointment could not have been cancelled. He submits that by the impugned order, petitioner’s appointment has been found to be irregular and, therefore, his appointment after twenty years of service should not have been cancelled. 5. The very fact that the petitioner got appointed without having appeared at the interview or without his name being there in the merit-list sufficiently shows that he obtained the employment fraudulently. Such appointment cannot be said to be irregular. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the petitioner should be allowed at least the salary in terms of the order of this Court dated 08.12.2009 since, in compliance of the said order, final order could not be passed within four months. I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to any benefit on the basis of an appointment which is based on fraud. 6. This application is dismissed accordingly.