Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1497 (PAT)

Santosh Kamal v. State of Bihar

2015-12-17

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the University. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 1.8.2015 passed by respondent No. 5, whereby they have been terminated from the post of Librarian. The petitioners further seek quashing of the letter No. 1363, dated 6.7.2015 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby direction has been issued to concerned officials not to make appointment on the post of Librarian on the basis of qualification obtained from University of Technology & Science, Raipur, Chhatisgarh. 2. The petitioners have got some documents to submit that the University was created under the State Act vide Notification dated 23.8.2003 of Technical and Education Department, Chhatisgarh by the order of Government of Chhatisgarh. In support of their submissions, they brought on record at Annexures-5, 6 and 7 showing that the University at least functioned up to 1.4.2005. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they took admission in the year 2003 and passed out in the year 2004. It would be incorrect to disqualify all such students, who had passed out from that institution at least prior to 2005. He has further challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to them, though all the petitioners have been appointed on substantive basis in the year 2010. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that respondent No. 2 may inquire whether during the period the petitioners studied, the University was functional or not. 5. As the case of the petitioners would succeed on the issue of not being provided an opportunity of hearing, I need not go into the issue of facts whether the institution was functional in the year 2004-05, the years the petitioners claims to pass out. The submission of the petitioners that they have been terminated without issuing a show cause notice, has not been controverted by the State and in support of the same, they have drawn my attention to the whole text of the order dated 6.7.2015. 6. In this view of the matter, in absence of show cause notice to the petitioners, the order of termination is not sustainable in law. The impugned order of termination is, accordingly, set aside. 6. In this view of the matter, in absence of show cause notice to the petitioners, the order of termination is not sustainable in law. The impugned order of termination is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 for proceeding afresh in the matter by issuing separate show cause notice to the petitioners. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Application Allowed.