IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4600 of 2003 KUMARI DIVYA W/o Shri Anil Kumar, resident of Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada. ……………………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The School Inspectress Cum Deputy Director of Education, Bihar, Patna. with CWJC No.4902 of 2003 GAYATRI DEVI D/o Shri Shevdani Singh, resident of village Kazibigha, P.O. Parma, District Nawada. …………….RESPONDENTS . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The School Inspectress Cum Deputy Director of Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Inspectress of Schools, Nawada. …………….RESPONDENTS ----------- 7 25.10.2010 Heard Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners and AC to SC-2 for the state in both the cases. Since both of these writ applications involve the same question as with regard to identical order of their termination of service dated 17.12.2002, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Mr Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 17.12.2002 is non- speaking order, which does not deal with the defence of the petitioners taken in their show cause reply. He has further explained that the impugned order has been passed after a long period of continuation of petitioners in service and in fact both of them have continued in service in view of the interim order of this court staying the operation of the order of their termination of 2 service. Counsel for the state on the other hand has submitted that the procedure of appointment meant for teachers was not followed in the case of the petitioners and the plea of the petitioners that their appointment was made pursuant to the advertisement issued in the month of March 1988 was found to be incorrect by the Inspectors of School cum Deputy Director of Education, Bihar by passing the impugned order wherein he has recorded that the advertisement in question was meant only for subject teachers of Craft and Music. In the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order cannot be sustained, only on the ground that the reasons given therein are contrary to the materials on record. It is not in doubt that an advertisement was published on 16.03.1988 in the daily newspaper for filling up the post of teachers of general subject as also Craft and Music and therefore when in the same advertisement the date of interview as 16.05.1988 was also mentioned for all the candidates, it cannot be said that no interview was held. That apart when the allegation of procedural infirmity vitiating the appointment of the petitioners was brought against them, it was the duty of the Inspectors of the School to examine the records of interview held on 16.05.1988 and if from them it was found that the petitioners as a matter of fact were never interviewed, their appointment could have been cancelled on the ground of breach of mandatory procedure of appointment as also 3 its being in violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It however appears that the records of interview held on 16.05.1998 was never examined either in the cause of enquiry or even by the disciplinary authority despite the categorical stand of the petitioners to have appeared in the interview. There is another aspect to the whole matter and Mr. Prakash learned Counsel for the petitioners to that extent seems to be correct that the petitioners have continued in service for a period over 20 years and have also the requisite qualification for the post being held by them. In this context the reliance placed by him on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Mithilesh Singh vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 2007 (4)PLJR 372 is also apt and appropriate. The petitioners, infact have continued in service for almost seven years after passing the impugned order, in view of the interim order passed by this court and therefore when they have now also completed more than twenty years in service, this court, in view of a very cryptic and perfunctory nature of the impugned order, can not approve their such cryptic order of termination of their service. Consequently the impugned orders of their termination of service of petitioners is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Inspectoress of the School to examine as to whether the petitioners fulfil the requisite qualification of the post of teacher on which they were appointed 4 and are still continuing in service. In the event it is found that both the petitioners fulfill the requisite qualification for the post of teacher held by them, the matter will be brought to an end but if it is found that either of the two petitioners or both of them do not possess the requisite qualification for the post of teacher, their services may be terminated after affording them a fresh opportunity to file their show cause. It is however made clear that this order shall not be treated to be a precedent for other cases, inasmuch as, the petitioners could continue in service on account of grant of interim order by this court for more than seven years in which no step was taken by the learned counsel for the state either for getting the stay order vacated and/or getting the writ application disposed of. As a matter of fact it is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners that this writ application has to extent indicated above allowed inasmuch as they claim to have been appointed on the basis of duly published advertisement in the newspaper followed by selection through interview and yet nothing has been said in this regard in the impugned orders which are not only cryptic but infact also wholly perfunctory in nature. With the aforementioned observations and direction both of these applications are disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)