WP(C) 4637/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the order of term ination dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Director of Education, BTC terminating hi s service as Assistant Teacher on the ground that such termination has been issu ed in spite of an interim direction contained in the order dated 05.10.2007 pass ed in WP(C) No.5220/2007, filed by the present writ petitioner, directing the re spondent authority to maintain status quo as regards the service of the petition er. The further ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is that t he said order has been passed without hearing the petitioner though the show-cau se notice was issued and he replied to such show-cause notice. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, M r. Goswami, the learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the State respondents and Mr. D. Das, the learned standing counsel for the responden t BTC authority. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The case of the petitioner, as noticed above is that the petitioner earl ier approached this court in WP(C) No.5220/2007 challenging the threaten action of the authority of the BTC to terminate his service, though he claims to be app ointed on the basis of the selection made by the authority and against the regul ar vacancy. According to the petitioner in the said writ petition an interim ord er dated 05.10.2007 has been passed directing the respondent BTC to maintain sta tus quo as regards the service of the petitioner, but the Director of Education, BTC in spite of such interim direction has passed the impugned order of termina tion on 23.06.2009 in complete disregard to the interim direction contained in t he order dated 05.10.2007 passed in respect of WP(C) No.5220/2007. The further c ontention, as noticed above, of the petitioner is that such order has been passe d without hearing the petitioner. Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent BTC has fairly submitted that the Director ought not to have passed the order of termination te rminating the petitioner from service as there is an interim direction issued by this court vide order dated 05.10.2007 passed in WP(C) No.5220/ 2007. It has fu rther been submitted by Mr. Das that since no hearing has been given, the petiti oner now would be heard. The petitioner in this writ petition had earlier approached this court i n WP(C) No.5220/2007 against the threatened termination as Assistant Teacher, on the ground that the authority of BTC is contemplating to terminate his service even without affording any opportunity to show-cause and without hearing and the reby violating the principle of natural justice, though he was appointed on the basis of the selection made against the regular vacancy. By order dated 05.10.20 07 this court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the petitioner’s service condition as on that date. The said interim order is admit tedly still in force. Such an order having been passed and being in force no ord er terminating the petitioner’s service can be passed by the BTC authority as ha s been done in the instant case by the Director. It also appears from the submis sions of the learned counsel for the parties that though the show-cause notice w as issued and reply was submitted, no hearing was given before passing the order terminating his service. Since the petitioner claims that he was appointed on t he basis of the selection made and against the regular vacancy, he is entitled f or hearing before terminating his service. It appears from the impugned order of termination that the petitioner’s service has been terminated on five grounds. The impugned order also does not reveal consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.06.2009 is set aside. The petitioner is deem to be in service with effect from the date of termination by the aforesaid order. The petitioner shall be paid his salary to which he is entitled to within a period of 3(three) months from today. At this stage Mr. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent B TC has submitted that the Director of Education, BTC will give hearing to the pe titioner and thereafter pass necessary order keeping in view the reply submitted by the petitioner and also upon hearing the petitioner and hence the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Director on a date to be fixed by this cou rt. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Director of Education, BTC on 04.12.2009, on which date the D irector shall hear the petitioner on the show-cause and the reply already submit ted by him and thereafter shall pass necessary order on the basis of such show-c ause, reply and hearing as well as the materials available on record. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated abov e. No cost.