IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2051 of 2001 RAM REKHA MISHRA son of Sri Ganesh Mishra, Resident of Village Singari P.S.Bagha, District West Champaran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary-cum-Commissioner,Secondary Education,Government of Bihar,Patna. 3.Director,Secondary Education,Bihar,Patna. 4.Regional Deputy Director,Secondary Education, Tirhut Division,Muzaffarpur 5.District Education Officer,West Champaran,Bettiah 6.The Head Master,Guttilal Girls High School, Ram nagar,West Champaran. ----------- 9 10.2.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s case is that vacancy for appointment on one post of Peon in Guttilal Girrls High School was advertised. The petitioner also applied for the said post. The District Education Officer, Bettiah after following due process appointed the petitioner on duly sanctioned post on temporary basis vide his Memo no.191-93 dated 22.7.1990. The petitioner gave his joining on the post on 1.8.1990. The District Education Officer, Bettiah vide Memo no.218- 20 dated 29.8.1990 passed order for making payment of salary to the petitioner in the Pay scale of Rs.775-1025/- from the date of his joining as Peon. He started getting his salary. His service book was opened by the order of respondents and he was confirmed as permanent employee by the order of the District Education Officer, Bettiah. Suddenly the District Magistrate, West Champaran by his order contained in Letter no.336 dated 11.4.1994 directed the Treasury Officer to stop payment of salary to those employees who were appointed in the Education/Health department within a period of five years. It was also directed that only after verification of their 2 appointment salary should be released in their favour. In the light of this direction, petitioner’s salary was also stopped. Petitioner represented before the District Magistrate,West Champaran making request for payment of salary. The District Magistrate by order dated 3.11.1995 directed the Treasury Officer to start making payment of salary to the petitioner and three other persons after making proper scrutiny. The Sub Treasury Officer, Bagha directed the District Education Officer to submit a list of working strength in different Government High Schools. The District Education Officer submitted report of 15 schools. In this report the name of Guttilal Girls High School, Ram Nagar is at Sl.no.10. In this school one post of Headmaster, 10 posts of Assistant Teachers, one post of clerk and two posts of peon were shown as sanctioned strength. Petitioner’s name was shown as working against sanctioned post of peon. In the year 2000 the Director, Secondary Education issued a general direction for holding enquiry with regard to illegal appointment in the department. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the District Education Officer. The petitioner produced his appointment letter and all relevant documents. Petitioner’s further case is that under the rules framed by the State Government 50% of Class III posts of Routine clerk and Typist etc. are to be filled up from the promotion quota in which those employees who have worked on Class IV posts and are fulfilling the criteria to hold Class III posts are appointed. The petitioner in the capacity of working on Class IV posts of Peon was 3 recommended to B.P.S.C. for his appointment to Class III posts. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the limited examination held for appointment to Class III posts. This has been submitted by the petitioner in order to show that he was working against the sanctioned post on regular basis. The enquiry which was conducted on the basis of direction of the Director, Secondary Education by the District Education Officer, Bettiah, the petitioner also appeared and submitted his show cause. Show cause filed by the petitioner was not considered properly and on flimsy ground the District Education Officer,West Champaran vide his order contained in Letter no.694 dated 20.6.2000 terminated the service of the petitioner and also directed to realize the salary paid to him. The termination was made on the ground that due process and reservation policy was not followed in the appointment. The appointment letter was not issued from the office of the District Education Officer. The posts were not advertised and interview was not held. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted hat appointment letter was issued by the D.E.O. but since he was incharge of the S.D.O.Bagha also as such by mistake of the concerned clerk instead of dispatching the appointment letter from the register of District Education Officer,West Champaran it was dispatched from the register of S.D.o.Bagha. This was only a clerical error and on this ground his appointment could not have been terminated. Further it has been submitted that in the similar circumstances Suresh Ram, Badri Raut and Pradip Kumar was also appointed like the petitioner by the 4 District Education Officer, Bettiah and their termination order was recalled by the District Education Officer himself and they were reinstated in service. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 the District Education Officer,West Champaran stating that appointment letter of the petitioner was not issued from the office of the District Education Officer. The Memo no.191-93 dated 22.7.1990 is fabricated document on the basis of which petitioner was appointed. It has also been stated that the posts were not advertised, interview was not held and reservation roster was not followed so the appointment of the petitioner is irregular as well as illegal. What I find that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 and he continued in service till 2000. In between this period on two occasions enquiry regarding the genuineness of appointment was held. The District Education Officer himself submitted report saying that the petitioner is working in the school on regular basis. His service book was opened. Petitioner’s name was recommended for his promotional appointment on Class III posts. There is nothing to show that any forgery was made by the petitioner in order to get this appointment, rather the document show that the appointment was made by the District Education Officer and this was within the knowledge of all concerned. Since the petitioner was working as regular employee he could not have been removed from the service simply by asking to submit show cause. A regular employee could 5 have been terminated following the procedures under rule for terminating the service of a regular employee. Since it was not done, the impugned order cannot be held to be legal and issued in accordance with law. Considering all these facts, the order contained in Memo no.694 dated 26.2.2000 (Annexure-9) issued by the District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah is quashed. This application is allowed. The District Education Officer, West Champaran Bettiah is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post on which he was working till the date of his termination from his service. On account of petitioner’s reinstatement, he will be entitled for all consequential benefits, he would have received in case of his continuation in service. The order of reinstatement of the petitioner must be issued within four weeks from the date of receipt/production/communication of this order. So far consequential orders are concerned, it should be passed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)