IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4293 of 2009 Vinod Kumar Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 25.07.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order contained in memo no. 1978 dated 17.11.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Banka, terminating the petitioner from the post of Peon. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, respondent no.6 has issued termination order against the petitioner without following the procedure for terminating Government employee who is confirmed on his post. One vacancy in the post of Peon was advertised through a notice on the notice Board of the School, namely, Rudeshwari Prasad Singh High School, Kakawara. Notice was published by the then District Education Officer, Bhagalpur. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioner filed his application for appointment against the said vacant post. He was interviewed by the concerned authority and selected for the post. The 2 appointment letter was issued vide memo no. 13695 dated 6.11.1982 and the petitioner joined on the post. His service on the post of Peon was confirmed in the year 1986. Petitioner was subsequently transferred from Thakur Rudeshwari Prasad Singh, High school, Kakwara to High school, Mohanpur by the District Education Officer vide memo no. 1608 dated 22.6.1998. The school in which the petitioner was working subsequently became the part of Banka District. In the year 2006, District Education Officer, Banka vide letter No. 86 dated 31.1.2006 asked the petitioner to produce the documents for verification of his service through the Headmaster. The Headmaster of High School, Mohanpur submitted the document including the service book of the petitioner before the District Education Officer, Banka vide letter no. 205 dated 21.2.2006. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2008 and in response to it, petitioner submitted his show cause, enclosing the relevant documents, relating to confirmation of his service. The District Education Officer, Banka without considering the show cause submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order, whereby petitioner was terminated from his service, on the 3 ground that appointment has not been made following the procedure for appointment on Class IV employees. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had completed 27 years of his service on the post of Peon, during this period his pay scale was revised, and he was confirmed in his service. Once the petitioner was confirmed, before issuing any termination order the respondents were duly bound to follow legal procedure, in case of termination of a confirmed Government employee. He could not have been removed from service, just by issuing a show cause notice. Even show cause submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration, while issuing termination order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Education Officer, Banka stating that the procedure to be observed for appointment of Class IV employees was not followed, as such the appointment was illegal and a termination order was issued. Simply because the petitioner continued on the post for a long period, was not sufficient for retaining him in service. An appointment, made without following the procedure, was irregular and fit for termination, 4 specifically when similarly situated employees, whose reference has been given in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, had also been terminated on similar grounds. I find that there is difference in between the appointment of the petitioner and those employees mentioned at para 4 and 5 of counter affidavit. This distinction has not been considered by the D.S.E., Banka. Those employees were appointed in the Project School, without following the procedure for appointment against unsanctioned post, as such they had no right to continue on the post. So far as petitioner is concerned, he was appointed against the sanctioned, post following all procedure. Even in case, it is presumed that the petitioner was appointed without following the procedure, the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi will be applicable in the case of petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled for being regularized on the post as admittedly, petitioner continued on a sanctioned post for 27 years, without any judicial intervention. There is no allegation that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal. It is as per 5 the statement in the counter affidavit, it was a regular appointment. In that view of the matter also the authority has committed serious error by issuing a termination order. For the reasons shown above, the impugned order of termination dated 17.11.2008 contained in memo no. 1978 is completely illegal and arbitrary which is fit to be quashed. Accordingly it is quashed. This application is allowed. Respondent District Education Officer, Banka is directed to reinstate the petitioner on his post forthwith on receipt/ production of a copy of this order with all consequential benefits. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)