IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.1837 of 2002 Ramdeo Prasad Singh, son of Sri Vishnu Deo Prasad Singh, resident of village Rajauli, Post Dhamjapatti, district Madhubani .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Samastipur, .. Respondents **** For the petitioner .. Mr. R.P.Singh, Sr. Adv. With M/S R.K. Singh, A.K. Singh, M. Kumar & R.K. Singh, Advs. For the State .. Mr. S.K. Mandal, S.C. XV **** /2/ 06.02.2009 Counsel for the respondent State is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is on record. 4. Petitioner’s case is that in the year 1984 an advertisement was published by Vidyalaya Seva Board for appointment of Assistant Teachers in various subjects, including Sanskrit. He also applied for Sanskrit subject in 2 response to this advertisement. On 26.11.1986 interview was held and panel was prepared by Vidyalaya Seva Board. The Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar, Patna, thereafter, issued appointment letter to all selected candidates vide Memo No. 1600, dated 16.04.1988. Petitioner was also appointed vide this very memo as Assistant Teacher in High School, Baisa, Gumla. He joined on the post on 15.05.1988. He continued to discharge his duty and on some occasions he was transferred also to different schools on the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner was discharging his duty without any disturbance till his transfer from Malinagar High School, Samastipur, to Pusa High School, Samastipur, in the year 1999. Suddenly, without any previous notice or show cause the order, dated 14.07.2001, was issued, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was declared illegal and he was terminated from his service. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for thirteen long years petitioner continued on the post without any objection as his appointment was done following all procedures. Suddenly, his appointment letter has been held forged and appointment illegal, even without assigning any opportunity 3 to show cause. The impugned order, as such, is completely in violation of the rule of natural justice as well as contrary to constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 16, 41 and 31(2) of the Constitution of India. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed where the statement made by the petitioner regarding his appointment following the procedure for a legal appointment after advertising the post, interviewing the candidates, have not been denied. There is no specific denial to the statement made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause before issuance of the impugned order. However, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit simply it is mentioned that statement made in paragraphs 9 to 14 are not fully correct. The petitioner was directed to submit all documents and his service book for verification. The papers submitted by the petitioner have been found forged and fabricated. This statement in the counter affidavit amounts to an admission that no proper enquiry was conducted before declaring the appointment of petitioner as forged and illegal. There is no denial in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was duly regularized after 4 his appointment and he was holding a sanctioned post on regular basis. In this back ground the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of rule of natural justice as well as without following the rules provided for termination of service of a regular employee, as such, it can not be considered as an order passed in accordance with law. The counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R., 42 (Nand Kishore Raut & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) to substantiate his submissions that if appointment itself is invalid there is no need for full enquiry or observation of rule of natural justice. 6. I do not think that this submission has got much force, considering the fact that before declaring an appointment invalid, an enquiry, in this regard, is must. At least the person, under whose signature the appointment letter has been issued, he needs to be examined. If there is no such denial on the part of the person, who has signed the appointment letter, there can not be any basis for holding that the appointment letter is forged. 7. On consideration of these facts and also on perusal 5 of the unreported decision of this case in C.W. J.C. No. 7656 of 2004 and analogous cases where in similar circumstance, the impugned order was quashed. In the present case also the impugned order, dated 14.07.2001, contained in Memo No. 2717, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, is quashed. Observations made in the unreported decision can be followed by the respondents in the present case also. 8. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )