IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1996 of 2002 Awadh Bihari Yadav, son of Shri Sarjug Yadav, resident of village Matia Tiwary Tola, P.S. Manjhi, District- Saran (Chapra) …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director, Secondary Education, Amrapali Bhawan, Patna 3.The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Amrapali Bhawan, Patna 4.The Regional Deputy Director, Saran Division, Chapra 5.The District Education Officer, Siwan, District- Siwan 6.The Principal, Hare Ram Brahmachari Uchcha Vidyalaya, Gangpur, Siswan, District- Siwan …………… Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Durgesh Nandan, Hirday Pd.Singh and Ram Nath Saran, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.15 and Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv. ---------- 4. 12/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 24.3.2001, as contained in Annexure-1, rejecting the representation of the petitioner filed pursuant to an earlier order of this Court and cancelling his appointment. The Director, Secondary Education has passed the order precisely on the ground that in the appointment of the petitioner, there was no paper notice, - 2 - no interview was held, there was no panel prepared, and the rules of reservation and roster clearance were not complied with. It has been mentioned that in the appointment of the petitioner, provisions contained in letter no.16440 dated 3.12.1980 and those contained in other Government letters were not complied with. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to some communication from the Bihar Secondary Education Board, the District Education Establishment Committee prepared a panel of the eligible candidates. It found that the petitioner was having the highest marks among six candidates and therefore, it was resolved to appoint him on the post of clerk. Photo copy of the panel prepared by the Establishment Committee dated 5.5.1995 is annexed as Annexure-3, which bears the signature of different authorities of the Education Department. The appointment letter of the petitioner is dated 8.5.1995, which is apparently subsequent to the preparation of the panel and resolution of the Establishment Committee. Petitioner joined the concerned - 3 - School but it appears that he was not paid his salary. Some objections were raised by the Headmaster in respect of appointment of the petitioner and the matter was enquired into. The matter travelled up to the Deputy Director of the Department, who, through his letter contained in memo no.704 dated 6.4.1996, addressed to the Headmaster, as contained in Annexure-7, communicated that the appointment of the petitioner had been found valid and therefore the same was approved. Subsequently, by another letter contained in memo no.904 dated 24.5.1996 of the Deputy Director, addressed to the Treasury Officer, Siwan, as contained in Annexure-8, it was communicated that the letter contained in memo no.704 dated 6.4.1996 was genuine and the same was confirmed. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the appointment of the petitioner was made pursuant to any advertisement. He submits that the rules of reservation and roster clearance were not followed and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was in the teeth of the said letter of the Government No.16440 - 4 - dated 3.12.1980. However, in respect of Annexure-3, the panel prepared by the Establishment Committee, and the aforesaid letters of the Deputy Director, as contained in Annexures-7 and 8, there is no denial in the counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that there was some selection process held by the District Establishment Committee, which prepared the panel from which petitioner was appointed. It is also clear that subsequently there was an enquiry at the level of Deputy Director, and the appointment of the petitioner was found valid and the same was confirmed. In such view of the matter, and there being no denial that there was some exercise done by the District Establishment Committee to hold selection process and petitioner’s services having been approved after due enquiry, petitioner is clearly protected by the exception carved out in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, as reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also rightly referred to and relied upon a judgment of this - 5 - Court, as contained in Annexure-17, in which also, in somewhat similar circumstances, application of the petitioners was allowed. Hence, in view of the observations of the Apex Court to the effect that the matters which stand concluded finally should not be reopened, this Court is of the view that the respondents are not entitled to question the nature of appointment of the petitioner at this stage, specially when some proceedings of the Establishment Committee, preparation of panel, its enquiry and approval of the appointment of the petitioner by the higher authority of the Department have not been denied by the respondents. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed. Impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of service except the salary of the period during which he has not worked. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)