IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1582 of 2006 Awadh Kishore Rai, S/o-Late Jhotil Rai, R/o-Vill.-Loharpatti, P.O.-Barwat Parsain, P.S.-Bettiah Mofassil, District-West Champaran. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, AC to GP-16. ------------ 06 13.05.2011 The petitioner’s father was an Assistant Teacher in Basic School, Lalgarh in the district of West Champaran who died on 23.03.1981. It is the petitioner’s case that petitioner was a matriculate and had done teachers training course and, accordingly, made an application on 02.01.1983 before the District Education Officer for compassionate appointment. At that time the relevant circular was of the year 1977 which provided that the application should be made within two years of the death. It is the case of the petitioner that the application was not processed and forwarded for consideration. In 1993 he made a reminder application, apart from other applications made earlier, to the Regional Deputy Director Education (R.D.D.E.), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur stating that his application for compassionate appointment has been pending since 1983. The R.D.D.E. asked Assistant Inspector of Schools, Basic Education to send petitioner’s application, which was duly sent vide Annexure-5. Upon which the R.D.D.E. finding petitioner qualified and eligible appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. It appears that for some month petitioner was paid but thereafter his salary was then stopped. It - 2 - appears that the matter was enquired into at the instance of the Collector of the district and having found that the appointment was duly made payments were ordered to be resumed, as would be evident from Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The letter of the District Education Officer under Memo No.213 dated 04.09.1997, notwithstanding that again a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and again his salary was stopped, petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1871 of 2000, which was ultimately disposed of on 27.04.2005, directing that the salary of the petitioner should be resumed, but that would not come in way of the authorities taking a decision in the matter. Apparently, pursuant thereto, petitioner was asked to show cause. Petitioner sought time but rejecting the same the impugned order was passed by the R.D.D.E., Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, which is challenged before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner had sought time to file relevant papers including bringing on record the order of the R.D.D.E., the order upon enquiry by which his salary was resumed as also his application, but ignoring all that merely on the ground that the petitioner had made an application belatedly, petitioner’s candidature has been cancelled. In my view, when the consequences were so serious, the R.D.D.E. should have granted some opportunities. As per petitioner’s case, petitioner had made application for compassionate appointment in 1983 within two years of death of his father. He was duly qualified and matric trained teacher. He was appointed by the - 3 - R.D.D.E. on compassionate ground and has been working. If these facts were established then the petitioner’s services would not be terminated. In view of the aforesaid, in my view, it would be appropriate that the impugned order of the Regional Deputy Director Education, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-1) is set aside with a direction to Regional Deputy Director Education, Muzaffarpur to verify the facts aforesaid afresh and after hearing the petitioner pass fresh order on the materials available on records. The order would be passed within three months of production of a copy of this order before the R.D.E.E. Let it be recorded that the matter being sent for reconsideration does not entitle the petitioner to rejoin but if the R.D.E.E. finds in favour of the petitioner then not only petitioner be permitted to rejoin but he would be deemed to be in continuous service without break. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)