IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6538 of 1997 MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.6384 of 1997 RAMAYAN PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.6471 of 1997 FANINDAR KISHORE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 19.8.2008 The petitioners in all the three writ petitions being aggrieved with the order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur have moved this Court for quashing the order of termination. According to the petitioners they were appointed as Assistant Teachers by annexure-1 on 5.10.1990 and thereafter they continued to work in different schools on the post of Assistant Teachers. The trouble began in October, 1990 itself when the petitioners did not receive their salary as a result of which some of the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 8412 of 1991. There was a direction in the writ applications that the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur shall consider the 2 grievances of the petitioners within the period of three months. After the lapse of three months no decision was taken by the Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur as a result of which the petitioners filed a contempt application. In the contempt application a show cause was filed on behalf of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur stating therein that petitioners will be paid their salary. After the contempt application the petitioners continued to work undisturbed but however, taking a cue from the direction in C.W.J.C. No. 674 of 1992 an enquiry was held to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have been validly appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers. On perusal of the enquiry report it is apparent that the documents with respect to appointment of the teachers was not available and as such the Enquiry Officer held that it would not be possible for him to decide as to whether the petitioners were illegally or irregularly appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers. The said enquiry report suggested a few measures to ascertain as to whether the petitioners working as 3 Assistant Teachers were regularly appointed on the said post. Having reached so far, the petitioners were issued a show cause notice in which it was stated that the petitioners had to show cause with respect to the validity of their appointments. After the show cause which was issued on 18.6.1996 vide letter no. 3686 (annexure-10 series) the impugned order contained in annexure-12 dated 5.2.1997 was issued in which it has been stated that the petitioners are illegally and irregularly appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry that was held on 31.12.1993 does not in fact indicate that the petitioners were illegally or irregularly appointed by the authorites. However, the counter affidavit tells a different story. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State an advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teachers was issued in compliance with an order passed in a S.L.P. 39 of 1986 on 7.8.1988. The minimum qualification mentioned in the advertisement was that the candidates should have been ‘Matric Trained.’ The petitioners are said to have been appointed by Dr. Diwakar Pathak who 4 was the then R.D.D.E., Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. It is indicated in the counter affidavit that Dr. Diwakar Pathak has stated specifically with respect to the appointments made by him that he had issued appointments through Memo no. 514B dated 15.10.1990 with respect to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes quota. 45 Teachers were appointed vide Memo No. 5145. By Memo No. 5146 dated 15.10.1990, 92 Assistant Teachers were appointed for East Champaran. By Memo No. 5147 dated 15.10.1990, 26 teachers were appointed in the district of Sitamarhi and by Memo No. 5148 dated 15.10.1990, 57 Assistant Teachers were appointed in the district of Vaishali whereas vide Memo No. 5149 dated 15.10.1990, 75 Assistant Teachers were appointed in the district of Muzaffarpur. On perusal of the letters of Dr. Pathak contained in annexure-A to the counter affidavit and annexure-1, the letters of appointment by which the petitioners are claiming that they have been appointed, it is apparent that annexure-1 is not a genuine appointment letter for reason that annexure-1 is numbered as Memo No. 5148 but it is said to be appointments made for the district of 5 East Champaran whereas by Memo No. 5148 the teachers were appointed in the district of Vaishali. This prima facie goes to show that the petitioners have not come with clean hands. Apart from the fact that the letter contained in annexure-1 does not tally with the letter of appointments issued by Dr. Pathak, it is also relevant that the minimum qualification in the advertisement has been mentioned as Matric Trained whereas the petitioners have a higher educational qualification of being Intermediate but they are not trained and as such they do not meet the required qualification for the purpose of appointment as mentioned in the advertisement. The submission on behalf of the State is that with respect to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6471 of 1997, Fanindar Kishore, it has been stated that his name does not find place in the establishment report which is maintained by the Headmaster as such there is a further ground of holding that the appointment of Sri Kishore was illegal and irregular. In view of the discussion above, the writ applications are dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)