IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8398 of 2005 PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BRIJ BIHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAI BAZAR, P.S. BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTRICT CHAPRA (SARAN).---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 5. PRINCIPAL, RAJPUR INTER COLLEGE, CHAPRA (SARAN). --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 11.3.2011 The petitioner is claiming that he was working from the year 1996 to 2004 as a part time Instructor under the Central Government Scheme which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that as per the scheme, there is provision for appointment of part time Instructor and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the purposes of being appointed on part time basis. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arbitrarily removed from the post of part time Instructor in 2004 without any reason. The petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 7819 of 1998 wherein the Court after considering the matter directed the authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and accordingly make payment to him. After the filing of 2 the writ application the petitioner continued to work and was purportedly being paid his salary. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been stated that in the year 1991 itself a decision was taken to make appointment of full time Instructors. Accordinlgy, 324 persons under the Central Government Scheme were appointed as full time Instructors. Annexure-A dated 30.9.2003 to the counter affidavit indicates that the Director of the Secondary Education has addressed a letter to the District Education Officer of several districts stating therein that since full time Instructors have been appointed, there is no necessity for appointment of part time Instructors. Annexure-B dated 11.9.2004 to the counter affidavit indicates that after receipt of the letter contained in Annexure- A, the Principal of the Rajput High School- cum-Inter College, Chhapra (Saran) was informed that they have received information that some part time Instructors are working in the College who should be immediately terminated in view of letter dated 30.9.2003 3 (Annexure-A). The State has also annexed document to show that part time Instructors who were removed from service in view of the fact that full time Instructors had been appointed. It is not a case where the petitioner has been targeted by the Department and been removed from the post of part time Instructor, rather in view of the fact that regular Instructors were appointed by the State in pursuance of the scheme of the Central Government. The Department did feel the necessity of retaining the services of part time Instructors. Under a particular scheme it is open to the State Government/Central Government to make or terminate appointments on the basis of the need of the time and, therefore, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim that he should be retained under the scheme as a part time Instructor. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had not been paid the honorarium as a part time Instructor, for the period that he has worked. In support of his case the petitioner refers to Annexures 10, 11 and 12. 4 Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that once the full time Instructors were appointed there was no occasion for retaining the services of part time Instructors, and their retention in service was illegal. I may point out here that even though the permanent Instructors were appointed some time in the year 1991, the departmental authorities took no steps for removing or passing any orders for removal of part time Instructors till the year 2003 which would be apparent from Annexure-B. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. The State or the concerned department should have ensured that the part time Instructors were no longer working on the said post on which they were appointed. The question as to whether the petitioner had received his honorarium or not would have to be considered by the Director, Secondary Education after getting a report from the Principal of the College where the petitioner was teaching. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty 5 to file a representation before the Director, Secondary Education within a period of six weeks on receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the representation the Director, Secondary Education should call for the records relating to the appointment and the attendance of the petitioner for the period for which he is staking his claim and after examining both aspects pass an appropriate order with respect to payment of the honorarium to the petitioner, if, it is found due, within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. This writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)