IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.444 of 2010 PRADIP NARAYAN SINGH, Son of Late Bharat Singh, Resident of Village- Singhi Kala, P.O.Ara, Chowk, P.S. Ara Nagar, District- Bhojpur at Ara.- petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director (Secondary Education),Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. 5. The District Education officer, Bhojpur at Ara. - Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Omkar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Naval Kishore Singh ********* 3 15.11.2010 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The petitioner is a Class III employee in the Education Department in Haribansh High School Chandi, District Bhojpur. He was appointed initially in the year 1989 for a period of two months but later on his appointment was approved by the District Establishment Committee. A show cause was subsequently issued to him in the year 1997 along with 31 other persons as to why their services were not terminated as they were illegally appointed. The petitioner and others filed their show cause having considered the show cause all the 31 were terminated. They all preferred the writ petition in separately leave or in separate groups. It is not in dispute that some of the persons were named in the show cause notice were as well filed C.W.J.C .No 7786 of 2002 and analogous cases, which were heard and finally allowed on 8.10.2002 2 (Annexure 17) ,it is also not in dispute that against this judgment, State preferred letter patent appeal No 131 of 2002, which was dismissed by this Court on 4.3.2008. Against which special leave to appeal was preferred to the Apex Court without any success. Petitioner’s writ petition remain pending being CWJC No 7466 of 2002 and was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 25.4.2008 with a direction to the respondent to consider regularizing and reinstating the petitioner in service in accordance with the directions issued in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 1. It appears that upon demand, the respondent did not give any credence to the earlier orders of this Court in similar cases and merely holding that the petitioner was wrongly appointed and affirmed the termination. By this writ petition the same is under challenge. In the counter affidavit no reason is given, why the authority chose to take a different view of the matter for similar case, as already decided by this Court. Even though the earlier judgments are appended to the writ petition and it is accepted that the authorities were aware of those judgments. They have chosen to ignore those judgments. Even in the counter affidavit, in my view, that cannot be sustained as noticed above. Petitioner was temporarily appointed and the District Establishment Committee confirmed his appointment way back over two decades. He was ultimately dismissed after having putting more than ten years of regular service so as others also against whom proceedings were started by the show cause notice they were also dismissed on 3 similar allegation. This Court set aside their dismissal and directed for their reinstatement and that order was not interfered with letter patent appeal in S.L.P. . Pursuant to directions passed in the writ petition of the petitioner the authorities ought to have followed the precedent and placed the petitioner. Similarly rather than forced him to come to this Court once again. Learned counsel for the State could not point out any difference between the case of the petitioner and the case in which judgments were passed setting aside the dismissal order and directed reinstatement. The facts having been sufficient and there being dissimilarity and in my view the order impugned in the present writ application by which petitioner application has been rejected cannot be sustained. The order impugned, being the order, as communicated in memo No. 317 of 2009, passed by Director of Secondary Education Government of Bihar, is thus set aside and the petitioner has directed in earlier cases, is directed to be reinstated to forthwith and his salary shall be resumed also forthwith. The responsibility thereof will be on the Director Secondary Education the petitioner must produce copy of this order immediately before the director concerned for its compliance. The petitioner would have continued in service but for the period during which the petitioner has not worked and would not claim monitory benefit. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)