IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15246 of 2001 RAJ KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 03/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In view of the order dated 23.7.1997 passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner, namely, C.W.J.C.No.771 of 1997, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application, now it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the findings of the authorities with regard to legality or otherwise of the appointment. However, while disposing of the said writ application, this Court had directed the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner of the period he had actually performed his duty within three months. Respondents were also given liberty to engage the petitioner on ad hoc basis if his services were required for teaching the students pending consideration of his claim for appointment in case the authorities intends to fill up the vacant post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the said direction of - 2 - this Court, petitioner has not been paid his full salary etc. and his case has not been considered for appointment on regular basis. His case has also not been considered for appointment on ad hoc basis. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been paid his salary of the period he was actually found to have worked in the school. However, referring to Annexures- A and C to the counter affidavit, he submits that a report was received by the District Education Officer that the attendance register did not show that the petitioner had worked between periods November, 1990 to October, 1993, therefore, salary etc. of the period has not been paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the appointment of the petitioner in the school was made by Annexure-1 dated 3rd September, 1990 and it is not conceivable that soon after his appointment, he will abandon his services for three years shutting down all prospects of regular appointment in the school and entering into regular Government service. He further submits - 3 - that the petitioner was never asked to explain with regard to said report and with regard to absence from work in the school from November, 1990 to October, 1993. He also submits that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to inspect the records of the school, he will be able to establish that he actually worked in the school during that period and then he will be able to satisfy the authorities that he is entitled for the salary etc. of the period. Considering the rival submissions on this disputed question of fact, it is apparent that this Court cannot come to any conclusion as to whether petitioner had worked in the school from November, 1990 to October, 1993 or not. However, this much is clear that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to controvert the report about his absence from school. In the circumstances, this Court feels it proper that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to meet the findings in the report, if necessary, by inspecting the records of the school to locate evidence to show that he had actually worked during that period. - 4 - Therefore, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect the records of the school, if he files a representation to that effect before the District Education Officer within one month from today, to enable him to locate the evidence of his actual working in the school during the period. After inspecting the records, petitioner will be at liberty to file another representation for salary referring to materials available in the school in support of his claim of having worked in the school during the period before the District Education Officer. On filing such representation, the District Education Officer shall consider the same and if he finds that the evidences show that the petitioner had actually worked during the period, he shall pass appropriate orders for payment of salary etc. of the petitioner of the said period. For this purpose, the District Education Officer may solicit appearance of the petitioner before him. In case, the district Education Officer does not find the materials pointed out by the petitioner as reliable, he will assign reasons - 5 - for the same and communicate the same to the petitioner. In view of the earlier order of this Court, in case the vacancies are still continuing, as reported to the District Education Officer vide Annexure-6, in the interest of teaching of the students, the respondents may be well advised to engage services of the petitioner on ad hoc/daily wages basis on admissible remuneration for which petitioner shall not claim any right at any subsequent stage. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)