IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1863 of 2010 Gita Kumari D/O Shri Rajdeo Singh R/O Vill.- Parihar Sadan, Mah. Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Katira, Arrah, Distt.- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah. ----------- 2 03.08.2011 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1- 7-2010 whereby along with another writ petition, CWJC no. 11976 of 2002 preferred by them was dismissed on the ground of appointment of the appellant not being in accordance with law and in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in the case of Md. Ashif & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 2010 (2) PLJR SC 156. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been appointed as class III employee in different high school in the district of Bhojpur in the year 1989 pursuant to advertisement on notice board. It has been submitted that the appellant/ writ petitioner continuously worked till her removal by the order impugned before the writ court dated 11-2-2002. Petitioner case is that her service book was opened in regular manner and contribution towards GPF and GIS was deducted from her salary and her service was confirmed by respondent no.3, the District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. However, by letter 2 dated 15-12-1999 the Director, Secondary Education sent a list of 31 employees working on class III – IV posts to District Education Officer, Bhojpur directing him to issue show cause notice against all the 31 employees with a view to cancel their appointments on the ground of appointments being illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown from the show cause notice issued pursuant to letter of the Director dated 15-12-1999 that the notice (annexure-4) did not disclose any specific allegation or illegality but merely mentioned that there was direction to remove illegally appointed 31 persons and, therefore, a clarification should be submitted within one week. The point urged before us is that the petitioner could not have shown cause against such vague and bald allegation that the appointment was illegal and in his show cause he denied that her appointment was illegal but he was removed because of direction of the Director contained in annexure-3 dated 15-12-99. On behalf of the appellant a strong submission was made that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of judgments and orders passed by this court in the case of similarly situated employees whose names are mentioned in the list of 31 alleged illegally appointed employees in annexure-3. First name in the list of 31 candidates is Ram Ekbal Singh and his writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 10- 10-2002 (annexure-7 series to the writ petition) by simply following judgment delivered by the same learned Single Judge in CWJC no. 7786/2002 and analogous cases. The State accepted that judgment 3 because LPA no. 23/2003 preferred in that matter was dismissed for non prosecution on 10-03-2008. Learned counsel for the State submitted that learned Single Judge has noticed that judgment in the case of Ram Ekbal Singh was rendered without the benefit of any counter affidavit and LPA was also dismissed without going into the merits. However, there was no denial that judgment in the case of Sanjay Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors in CWJC no. 7786/2002 related to three employees from the list of 31 persons enclosed with the letter of the Director, Secondary Education and those writ petitions were allowed on 8-10-2002 by a common judgment and order after considering the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of apparent vagueness in the show cause notice as well as order of removal. The judgment rendered in CWJC no. 7786/2002 has been produced before us and that contains several reasons for allowing the claim of similarly situated employees whose names are mentioned in the list of 31 employees allegedly illegally appointed in the Bhojpur district. That judgment was considered by a Division Bench of this court in LPA no. 1312 of 2002 and the said LPA was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 4-3-2008. The case of Uma Devi noticed above was reported and available at that time. The State preferred Special Leave Petition including CC 12320/2008 which was placed for orders and delay was condoned but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 15-9-2008 holding that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India. 4 On behalf of appellant, it has been submitted that although the show cause notice is vague and ordinarily the matter should have been remitted back for proper show cause notice and further opportunity of filing show cause but since similarly situated employees in the education department in Bhojpur district have been granted relief by this court without any interference made by the Apex Court, it would be denial of justice and equity to the appellant if his case is treated differently while similarly appointed person shall continue to serve on his post till superannuation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed above, we are of the considered view that equity and justice requires similar treatment to be meted out to the appellant. Hence, without going into requirement of remitting the matter back to the authorities and other controversies, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders terminating the service of the appellant is quashed. The writ petition and the appeal are allowed to that extent. As a result, the appellants shall be reinstated on his respective post with all monetary benefits. This judgment may not be treated as a precedent. PN (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)