IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.47895 OF 2008 ASHOK KUMAR NIRALA, SON OF BHUNESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HUSAINA RAGHO, POST OFFICE BALUKARWAN, POLICE STATION VAISHALI, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHAYAY. A.P.P. ********* 2 27/10/2009 The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order dated 21.01.2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon on 28.01.1988 in the Office of D. N. High School, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner’s services were terminated on 18.11.1997 on the ground that his appointment was made without proper advertisement, interviews, selection etc. In the mean time, the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur also filed a criminal case against the beneficiaries of the so-called illegal appointments. The matter came up before this Court when the petitioner challenged his termination by filing writ application being CWJC No. 1130 of 1998 which was disposed of on 31.07.1998 by which this Court quashed the order of termination. Against the order of the learned Single 2 Judge, the State preferred LPA No. 1181 of 2000 which was dismissed. The aforesaid criminal case was filed against 12 persons. All 12 persons moved this Court by filing writ applications and their order of termination was set aside by this Court which was challenged before the Division Bench in LPAs by the State which stood dismissed and the petitioner along with others were reinstated in services. Against the order passed in the LPA, the State moved the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpana Rani which was dismissed by the Apex Court and the order passed in the writ application and LPA were upheld by the Supreme Court, and, as such, the petitioner and others continue to be in service and their order of termination stood cancelled by various orders passed by this Court. In the criminal case it is alleged that the petitioner was illegally appointed without following the procedure as laid down under the law. This case remained pending since 1995. In the mean time, as stated above, the very basis of the allegations has been set aside by this Court by various orders passed in writ applications. At present, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.01.2002 by which the Court below has 3 refused to discharge the petitioner in the case for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below has relied on the case diary to hold that the petitioner was illegally appointed and was the beneficiary of the appointment which was made without following the procedure laid down under the law. This aspect of the matter can no longer be questioned in view of the fact that the order of termination has been cancelled. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would serve no purpose to allow the petitioner to face trial after a gap of 11 years or more in a case where this Court has quashed the order of termination of the petitioner. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 21.01.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in G.R. Case No. 2756 of 1999 (Trial No. 689 of 2007) is quashed as far as it concerns the above named petitioner. ANAND ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )