IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.219 of 2010 1. ARCHANA KUMARI W/O SANJAY KUMAR R/O MOH- JAI PRAKASH PATH, P.S- SITAMARHI, DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SITAMARHI 5. THE DISTRICT-SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SITAMARHI 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DUMRA, SITAMARHI 7. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THROUGH SECRETARY ADARSH MARVARI MADHYA VI DYALAYA, SITAMARHI 8. THE HEAD MASTER, ADARSH MARVARI MADHYA VIDYALAYA, SITAMARHI ----------- 02/ 10.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order contained in letter no. 500 dated 14.10.2009 issued by the Block Education Officer –cum- Secretary, Marvari Madhya Vidyalaya, Sitamarhi, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner’s case is that she was appointed and working as Assistant teacher since 5.1.2000. Her salary was not being paid, finally she filed Writ Application and also MJC Application. During the pendency of the MJC application she was paid her salary vide order contained in Annexure- 4 dated 23.3.2009. Subsequently the impugned order has been issued terminating her from service. Petitioner’s further case is that without issuing any show - 2 - cause notice, without giving any opportunity the dismissal order has been issued by anti-dating. It is also stated that prior to issuance of the order the petitioner was never given any show cause. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that vide letter no. 125 dated 27.3.2009 petitioner was asked to show cause regarding her unauthorized absence from the School, with effect from 21.3.2008. Again a reminder letter was sent vide letter no. 142 dated 6.4.2009 but no show cause was filed by the petitioner. Finally, Managing Committee of the School took a resolution to dismiss the petitioner from her service. The dismissal order has been communicated through Annexure-7 dated 4.10.2009 contained in letter no. 500, the petitioner has come for quashing of that order. I do not find that the order impugned needs any interference by this Court. Petitioner absented herself for one year. She was issued notice to show cause and reminder to this notice, but she did not file her show cause, rather continued to remain absent from School. Finally, Managing Committee took a decision to dismiss the petitioner from - 3 - her service. This application is dismissed, finding no merit in this application. Petitioner has liberty to represent before the authorities, who may consider it afresh. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)