IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5484 of 2005 Md. Alam, son of Bachha Gaddi, village Barharwa, PO Dumari Bazar, PS Jogapatti, District West Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. (2) The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. (3) The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. (4) The Dist. Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah – Respondents. 3 13.1.2011 This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 15.1.2005 contained in Annexure 9 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that his temporary appointment was made without issuance of an advertisement and preparation of a panel by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has based his claim on the fact that he was appointed by the competent authority and was permitted to work from 1991 till 1999 as a Clerk in different project schools. The petitioner places his reliance on a decision of this court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Indra Mohan Rai, 2009 (2) PLJR 869, wherein it has been held that those who were appointed on temporary basis and continued for a long period of time and were paid their salary and the benefit of revisions of pay should not be terminated from service without following the procedure under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The facts relating to the petitioner’s case are that he was appointed vide Annexure 1 on 18.11.1991 in view of the fact that there was a requirement in Baidnath High School, Jogapatti 2 for a qualified Clerk. The petitioner continued in service and in fact was transferred from the school where he was appointed, to different project schools in Tirhut Division. The service book at Annexure 2 indicates that the petitioner was treated as a temporary employee and his service book was signed by the Principal showing him to be a temporary employee. Later, he appeared in the Hindi Noting & Drafting examination and was declared successful in 1995 and his pay was fixed by the department according to the recommendation of pay revision commission which was accepted from time to time by the State Government. It appears that in 1996 the petitioner came to be described as a permanent employee of the Education Department. However, this status awarded to him is not explained in the writ petition. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he was appointed on temporary basis and allowed to continue in service for a period of nine years, during which he passed his departmental examination and his pay was fixed from time to time in accordance with the report of pay revision commission. It is further submitted that Annexure 9 is based on a report by the Regional Deputy Director of Education which indicates, that he, on the basis of the limited records available with him, could not trace the advertisement by which the petitioner was appointed. The case of the petitioner is that this aspect of the matter was never in question and that he was selected after issuance of a notice on the notice board of the department. However, there is no material to support the said submission of the petitioner. It is finally submitted 3 that the petitioner’s case would be covered by the decision in the case of State of Bihar vs. Indra Mohan Rai (supra). The Division Bench while considering the case of Indira Mohan Rai, a treasury guard in the office of the Senior Electrical Inspector has considered the fact that the petitioner was permitted to work for seventeen years, against a temporary post and his pay was revised from time to time by the authorities concerned, indicating thereby that they treated the petitioner to be a regular employee. It is submitted that the petitioner’s case is on a better footing as the petitioner was not only given the benefit of pay revision, but was also allowed to sit in the departmental examination in which he passed. This fact shows that the petitioner had the required qualification for the post on which he was working. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should be treated to be a regular appointee and his service should not been terminated without following the procedure under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Lastly counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as appointment of the petitioner is concerned, it is not tainted with malafide nor was the petitioner in any way responsible for obtaining an illegal appointment. The fact remains that the petitioner has been treated as a temporary employee by giving the benefits of a permanent employee. The State Government after treating the petitioner to be a temporary employee working in the department on a regular basis ought to have considered all aspect of the matter before terminating the petitioner. 4 I, thus, quash annexure 9 and remand the matter back to the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna who will consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision in the case of State of Bihar vs. Indra Mohan Rai within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)