ORDER : In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2), issued under the signature of respondent no.2-Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, whereby the claim of petitioner for re-appointment/re-instatement on the post of Peon has been rejected without considering the judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. no.1752 of 2001 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. no.397 of 2003 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). 2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj (Respondent no.3) in the year 1987 on the post of Peon in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Sahebganj and thereafter he was transferred in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj in the year 1988 and since then he was working. But after about six years, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj with effect from 27.07.1993 and being aggrieved by the termination order, he had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. no.894 of 1994, which was withdrawn on 18.05.1995 by the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate authority. However, pursuant to the direction of the Director, the respondent no.2 after proper verification re-appointed the petitioner on the post of Peon in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj vide Memo dated 03.08.1998 and the petitioner again joined on 05.08.1998 in the office of respondent no.4 and since then he was working on the said post. After lapse of about two years of re-appointment of petitioner, all of a sudden, he was directed to submit his explanation by 10.05.2000 as to why his services should not be terminated vide Memo dated 25.04.2000. Pursuant to the direction of respondent no.2, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.05.2000. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 has issued order terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect vide Memo dated 14.09.2000. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.10.2000 praying therein to re-consider the validity of his re-appointment made by the competent authority after proper verification. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 has issued order terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect vide Memo dated 14.09.2000. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.10.2000 praying therein to re-consider the validity of his re-appointment made by the competent authority after proper verification. However, the respondent no.2 taking into consideration the entire affairs regarding appointment and re-appointment of petitioner prepared a file and sent the same to learned Government Advocate for legal opinion and the learned Government Advocate returned the file with legal opinion in favour of petitioner, but the respondent no.2 sat tight over the matter since long. Ultimately, the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(S) no.2593 of 2003 praying, inter alia, for quashing the impugned termination order and this Court vide order dated 9.01.2009 directed the respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same by speaking order. The petitioner pursuant to the direction of respondent no.2 appeared before him on 11.02.2009 and produced all relevant documents and the order passed in similarly situated persons, namely, Sada Nand Thakur i.e. C.W.J.C. no.1752 of 2001. The order passed in C.W.J.C. no.1752 of 2001 had been challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. no.397 of 2003, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to modify the order to the extent that the writ petitioner in the said case will not be entitled to salary since he has not worked for the period in question. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar and identical to that of Sada Nand Thakur, who was also appointed without following due procedure of law and again has been re-instated/re-appointed. The petitioner's appointment was made on the direction of Director, Secondary Education and found correct by the competent authority, but the respondent no.2 has issued order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2) rejecting the claim of petitioner for reinstatement/re-appointment. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2), the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 4. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2), the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before this Court that in pursuance of order dated 03.08.1998 issued by the competent authority i.e. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka, the petitioner was re-appointed on the post of Peon after following due procedure, but the respondent no.2 has passed order dated 25.02.2009 rejecting the claim of petitioner for re-instatement/reappointment without considering the judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. no.1752 of 2001 (Annexure-10) and also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. no.397 of 2003 (Annexure-11), which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the impugned rejection order dated 25.02.2009 is fit to be quashed. 5. Controverting the averments made in this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein it has been, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj on the post of Peon without following the requisite procedure. According to the Shiksha Anusachiwiya Karmchari Seva Sambarg, Niyukti, Pronnati Awamg Sthanantaran Niyamwali, 1974 and subsequently amendment Rules 1980 and 1987, the appointment on 4th grade posts of Regional Office of Education Department and the Government School is to be made by the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education in accordance with norms and procedure laid down by the State Government. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1988 by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj, who was not a competent authority, without following the norms and procedure and thereafter the District Education Officer, Sahebganj has passed order terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination, filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no.896 of 1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.05.1995. The then Hon'ble MLA of the concerned place wrote a letter to then Hon'ble Education Minister, Government of Bihar for giving an order to the Director, Secondary Education for re-appointment of the petitioner and the Hon'ble Education Minister endorsed the said letter to Director and ordered to act upon the recommendation made therein. The then Hon'ble MLA of the concerned place wrote a letter to then Hon'ble Education Minister, Government of Bihar for giving an order to the Director, Secondary Education for re-appointment of the petitioner and the Hon'ble Education Minister endorsed the said letter to Director and ordered to act upon the recommendation made therein. Thereafter, the Director has directed the Regional Deputy Director of Education for reappointment of the petitioner on the post of Peon. After finding that the appointment and re-appointment of the petitioner was illegal, the respondent no.2 asked show cause from the petitioner and after submitting his show cause, the respondent no.2 has issued order terminating the services of petitioner after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Against the order of termination, the petitioner filed W.P.(S) no.2553 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2009 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, as prayed for, in accordance with law and dispose of the same by speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) no.2553 of 2003, the respondent no.2 has passed order rejecting the claim of petitioner for reappointment vide order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) after giving adequate opportunity of hearing. It has been further submitted that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Sadanand Thakur, as he was appointed on 3rd grade post on 20.01.1989, but the petitioner was appointed on 4th grade post and the services of Shri Thakur was terminated on 15.04.1997 while the services of petitioner was terminated on 27.07.1993. It has been further submitted that the right of equality of other eligible candidates as provided in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India was violated in making appointment and re-appointment of the petitioner as no advertisement was published and no merit list was prepared and reservation policy of the Government was also not followed. Hence, the order of termination of petitioner's service is valid and legal and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Hence, the order of termination of petitioner's service is valid and legal and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In reply, a rejoinder to counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it has been submitted that the plea of the respondent no.3 that the appointment of the petitioner was made without following due procedure is not sustainable in the eye of law and, in fact, re-appointment order vide Memo dated 3.8.1998 (Annexure-4 series) issued by the competent authority i.e. respondent no.2-regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka has been made after proper verification. It has been further submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court vide dated 10.03.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. no.1752 of 2001 (Annexure-10) and also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. no.397 of 2003 (Annexure-11), the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief and the termination order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2 is fit to be quashed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was re-appointed on the post of Peon by the respondent no.2-Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka, who is the competent authority and, therefore, the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2) is not legally sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the reasons stated herein above and as a logical sequitur to the factual and legal matrix, the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2) being not legally sustainable is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Annexure-10 & 11 as well as in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands allowed.