Patna High Court LPA No.404 of 2011 (3) dt.19-07-2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.404 of 2011 1. Kumari Sheela Singh , D/o Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of village & post office Aasani, P.S. Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur 2. Vishnudeo Singh, son of Ram Kumar Singh, resident of village & post office Nawada- Ben, PS Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur 3. Birendra Prasad Singh, son of Sri Bhagwati Singh, resident of village & post office Nawada- Ben, PS Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah .... .... Respondent/s Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Singh, Sr. advocate Mr. Dr. Anil Kumar Uadphyay, advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K.Mandal SC24 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 24 ------------- 3 19-07-2011 Heard the parties. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 1-7-2010 whereby along with another writ petition, CWJC no. 11930 of 2002 preferred by them was dismissed on the ground of appointment of the appellants not being in accordance with law and in the light of judgement 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 appellants has submitted that all the three appellants were appointed as class IV employees in Patna High Court LPA No.404 of 2011 (3) dt.19-07-2011 2 different high schools in the district of Bhojpur in the year 1989 pursuant to advertisement on notice board. It has been submitted that the appellants/ writ petitioners continuously worked till their removal by the order impugned before the writ court dated 11-2-2002. Petitioners case is that their service books were opened in regular manner and contribution towards GPF and GIS was deducted from their salaries and their service was confirmed by respondent no.3, the District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. However, by letter 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 appellants 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 petitioners could not have shown cause against such vague and bald allegation that the appointment Patna High Court LPA No.404 of 2011 (3) dt.19-07-2011 3 was illegal and in their show cause they denied that their appointment was illegal but they were removed because of direction of the Director contained in annexure-3 dated 15-12-99. On behalf of the appellants a strong submission was made that these appellants should not be denied the benefit of judgements 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 judgement dated 10-10-2002 (annexure-7 series to the writ petition) by simply following judgement delivered by the same learned Single Judge in CWJC no. 7786/2002 and analogous cases. The State accepted that judgement 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 judgement 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 judgement 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 Patna High Court LPA No.404 of 2011 (3) dt.19-07-2011 4 of the Director, Secondary Education and those writ petitions were allowed on 8-10-2002 by a common judgement 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 judgement 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 judgement 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. On behalf of appellants, 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 Patna High Court LPA No.404 of 2011 (3) dt.19-07-2011 5 have been granted relief by this court without any interference made by the Apex Court, it would be denial of justice and equality to the appellants if their cases are treated differently while similarly appointed persons shall continue to serve on their posts 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 these appellants. 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 services of the appellants are quashed. The writ petition and the appeal are allowed to that extent. As a result the appellants shall be reinstated on their respective posts with all monetary benefits. This judgement may not be treated as a precedent. Bimalanshu Kumar Singh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)