Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 301 (JHR)

Md. Rashid v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-14

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2023
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. R. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Education Project Council. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the office order dated 27.12.2022 as contained in Memo No. 1550 (Annexure 11) passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents that the post of Accountant cum Computer Operator in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School may be kept vacant or no new fresh appointment be made during the pendency of the instant writ application. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. R. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis as an Accountant cum Computer Operator and by terminating the services of the petitioner on flimsy grounds, the respondents have initiated the process for filling up the said post by intending to select another contractual appointee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3 which is at present pending. It has also been submitted that no fresh appointment be made to the post of the petitioner prior to the consideration of the appeal preferred by him. 4. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the petitioner was a contractual employee and he does not have any vested right in the said post. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 clearly reveals the misconduct on the part of the petitioner which led his services being terminated by the respondent no. 5. 5. Since it appears that an appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner and which has been appended to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and which is still said to be pending before the respondent no. 3, without making observations on the merits of the case or on the impugned order dated 27.12.2022, this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. This writ application stands disposed of. 7. 3 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. This writ application stands disposed of. 7. Let a copy of the order be served upon the learned counsels for the respective parties. 8. Let this order be communicated through FAX to the respondent no. 3.