IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12748 of 2010 BRAJENDRA OJHA, S/o Jagnnath Ojha Resident of village- Tarwan Parsa, P.O+P.S- M.H. Nagar ( Hasanpur) Dist- Siwan --------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division at Chapra. 5. The District Education Officer, Siwan. 6. The District Superintendent of Education , Siwan. -----------Respondents 2. 01.04.2011 Annexure 13 is the order which have been passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government of Bihar, on the direction of the High Court issued in C.W.J.C. No.15460 of 2004. The petitioner thereafter was heard on the issue of this removal from service which was the issue earlier raised in the writ application. Annexure 13 is the speaking order which has been challenged and assailed by the petitioner in the present writ application. Submission of the learned counsel is that he had been legally and validly appointed at the relevant time by Additional Director of Education, Tirhut along with similarly situated persons and he has worked in that capacity on the post of clerk in the institution as well as some places where he was transferred from time to time. However, subsequently without following the procedure the authority decided to terminate the service on totally extraneous consideration. 2 A reading of the impugned order does not support the stand or the story which has been urged by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the bar. It is evident from the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the authority not empowered to and there was large scale illegal appointments made at the relevant time by such a person which added up to more than5.6. All such appointments become a subject matter of inquiry and the Director of Secondary Education came to a considered opinion that the appointments were totally illegal and for extraneous consideration not in accordance with law and that too by a person not competent to make such appointments. Even thereafter the dispute did not end because the petitioner decided to challenge such an order. The High Court referred the matter to the Principal Secretary for adjudication and annexure 13 has been passed. It is a very detailed and well considered decision where the entire history of appointment transfer and continuance of the petitioner has been traced. The illegality has been pointed out at every stage. It is in this background that the Principal Secretary has urged that there was no occasion for the petitioner to be appointed on the post which was illegal. In fact directions have been issued to take action against all those persons were responsible for appointment of petitioner including the so called Principals or the in-charge principals of the school who extended shelter to the petitioner in this regard. 3 In absence of any infirmity, legal or otherwise having been pointed out to the reasoned order this Court would not lightly interfere in the matter since much valuable time and public resources have been utilised in hearing this matter on many an occasions with regard to claim of the petitioner. Since the findings on too glaring based on evidence emerging from records the court is not inclined to interfere with Annexure 13. The writ has no merit and is dismissed. Namita ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)