IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17760 of 2008 Kaushal Kishore, SON OF SRI RADHA MOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NATHANAHA, P.O.- BAKATPUR, P.S.- KATHAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : M/S Rajeshwar Prasad, Virendra Kuar, Advocates. For the State :- Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, A.A.G.-9. Md. Anisul Haque :- A.C. to A.A.G.-9. ---------- 2. 19.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Clerk in the office subordinate to the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna i.e. Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. He has filed this writ petition questioning the order bearing Memo No. 125‘P’ dated 27.5.2008, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereunder his services has been terminated notwithstanding the fact that he had produced his appointment letter before the authorities, as is evident from the impugned order itself but the impugned termination order was passed on the ground that the reservation rules and the instructions of the Government contained in Resolution No. 5939 dated 2 18.6.1993 was not followed before appointing the petitioner. Similar order was also passed in the case of Binay Kumar Singh and another who preferred C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 2009. Another Bench of this Court set aside the termination order passed in the case of Binay Kumar Singh and another under orders dated 16th September, 2011. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the order dated 16.09.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 2009. 3. Counsel for the State accepts the position that this case is also covered by the order dated 16.09.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 2009 but states that in counter affidavit further grounds have been taken in support of the termination order. Such grounds cannot be appreciated as those grounds were also taken by way of counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 2009 but rejected. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of exactly in the same terms which is contained in order dated 16th September, 2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2930 of 2009. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)