IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C No.13986 of 2006 1.DHARAM JEET KUMAR, S/O VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BANDHU BIGHA, P.O. USRI, POLICE STATION MEHANDIA, DISTRICT ARWAL. 2.RANJEET KUMAR, S/O SHRI BASANT PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE SHEO ASTHAN, THAKURBARI ROAD, POLICE STATION AURANGABAD (TOWN) AT P.O & DISTRICT AURANGABAD,(BIHAR). 3.SUMAT KUMARI, W/O SHRI CHANDRA KANT PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE TANKUPI, P.O. DUMRA POLICE STATION HASPURA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 4.NAND KISHORE PASWAN, S/O SHRI JANARDHAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE KALLN, P.O. KHUDWAN, POLICE STATION OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 5.RAJNI KANT PATEL, S/O THAKUR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BHABUA POLICE STATION BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMAUR. ............PETITIONERS. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL BELTRON BHAWAN, SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA 21. 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN “SARVA SIKCHHA AVIYAN” AURANGABAD. 4.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION CUM ZILA KARYA KRAM SAMYUYAVAYAK SARVA SIKCHHA AVIYAN” AURANGABAD. 5.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 6.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, AURANGABAD. .............RESPONDENTS. 04/ 06.07.2011 Heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was not only in terms of the conditions imposed in his appointment letter but also the fact that the except petitioner no. 1, none of the other four petitioners had been possessing 2 the requisite qualification for being engaged as a special teacher under the Bihar Education Project was assisting the children, this Court would find no merit in the rest of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the principles of natural justice were not followed prior to their termination of service. As a matter of fact, once this comes on surface that the petitioner could not have been allowed to continue on March-2006 on the post in view of stipulation in their order of appointment as contained in (Annexure-3 series). There was infact no vested right in the petitioners to be absorbed on a purely tenure part of one year which could enable them to claim an opportunity of hearing. In fact when the respondents could also come out to the conclusion that barring the petitioner no 1 none of the other petitioners had a degree or diploma in the field of visibility nor even registered from the rehabilitation Council of India, it has to be held that the very engagement of petitioner nos. 2 to 5 was in teeth, in terms 3 of the advertisement. In any event, such temporary management made for the financial year 2005-06 had not clothed the petitioners with any right to continue on tenure posts of special teacher. Moreover the respondent no. 2 had also got the fresh advertisement made for the year 2006-07, and as such the petitioners cannot claim to have continued beyond the period stipulated in their appointment letter. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and it must be and is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that the dismissal of this writ application will not come now in the way of the petitioner no. 1, a duly qualified candidate, to be engaged in future in any of similar work under the Bihar Education Project. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)