IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4139 of 2008 SMT.KIRAN KUMARI SINHA, aged about 53 yrs, daughter of Late Jamuna Prasad Sinha, wife of Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, resident of Village-Sanhauli, P.O.-Sanhauli, P.S.-Khagaria, District-Khagarai. .............Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director (Secondary Eduation), Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Inspectress of School-cum-Deputy Director of Education Department of Human Resources, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 5. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnia Division, Purnia, Bihar. 6. Head Mistress, Govt. Girls High School, Purnia, Bihar. ............Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, No.-1, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ravi Verma, AC to G.P.-15. 2/ 22.04.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 151-54 dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Inspectress of School-Cum-Deputy Director of Education, Bihar, Patna. The respondent No. 4, has terminated the petitioner from her service with effect from her initial date of appointment i.e. 15.01.1982, on the ground that without following the procedure for legal appointment, she was appointed on the post. Petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for challenging the order of termination contained in Memo No. 326 dated 25.06.2001. The writ application was allowed, and the impugned termination order was quashed, however the respondents were giving liberty to proceed afresh in accordance - 2 - with law. The respondents, thereafter, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend her appointment, have passed the order, under challenge. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce documentary evidence in support of the legality of her appointment but she could not produce any of the documents. She had been appointed, ignoring the proper and prescribed procedure for appointment. The posts were not advertised, interview was not held and without following the procedure she was appointed. I find that on earlier occasion, when the petitioner had come before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9243 of 2001, challenging termination order, the respondents in their counter affidavit had not denied that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification for being appointed as matric trained Craft teacher. It was also not denied that the petitioner was working and transferred on a sanctioned post of Craft Teacher. There is no denial that the petitioner had been appointed by the person, competent to make such appointment. It was also not denied that uninterruptedly for 19 long years, petitioner continued on that post and treated as a regular employee, as she was given increment, time bound promotion and other benefits, allowed to a regular employee. Admittedly, one and the only deficiency in the appointment of petitioner was that the post was not widely advertised and interview was not held. Such kind of appointment - 3 - cannot be categorized as illegal appointment rather irregular appointment and the law settled by the Supreme Court, in the matters of such appointment, 2006(4) SC 1 ( Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi), is that by giving an opportunity to such appointees, they can be regularized against their posts. The earlier writ application filed by the petitioner had been disposed of giving liberty to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. I find that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without considering the law in this regard. The impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the settled law in this regard. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner on the post, she was earlier working, treated her as a regular appointee and all such benefits, for which she was earlier found entitled before her termination, shall be allowed to her. This application is allowed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)