IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1272 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 219 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 7199 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1272 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. Archana Kumari W/O Sanjay Kumar R/O Mohalla- Jai Prakash Path, P.S. Sitamarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 4. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Education Officer, Dumra, Sitamarhi. 7. The Managing Committee through Secretary Adarsh Marvari Madhya Vidyalaya, Sitamarhi. 8. The Headmaster, Adarsh Marvari Madhya Vidyalaya, Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents 1-6: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.-16 For the Respondent No.8:Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 27.10.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 7199 of 2010: Though served the respondent no. 7 has not entered appearance. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 37 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. - 2 - Letters Patent Appeal No. 1272 of 2010:- The appellant, a Middle School Teacher, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th May 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 219 of 2010. The service of the appellant as teacher in the middle school run and managed by the respondent no.7 has been terminated under communication dated 14th October 2009 with effect from 21st March 2008. The challenge to the said order before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order is ex facie bad in so far as the service of the appellant has been terminated with retrospective effect. He has also submitted that the decision to terminate the service of the appellant was taken on 22nd March 2009, long before the date of communication dated 14th October 2009. On that ground alone the impugned order is required to be set aside. In support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.L.Trehan v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 764. In the above referred judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of post decision hearing. Present is not a case of post decision hearing. The said judgment, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case. The appellant possesses the educational qualification of passing 12th standard examination. By order dated 3rd January 2000 she was temporarily appointed as teacher in the middle school run and - 3 - managed by the respondent no.7. Since the month of March 2008 she remained absent from duty without leave continuously till the date of the order. It is apparent that the appellant was given show cause notice on 27th February 2009 and a reminder on 6th April 2009. She did not respond to the either. In absence of any explanation by the appellant pursuant to the resolution dated 22nd March 2009 passed by the managing committee the appellant’s service was terminated with effect from 21st March 2008, the date since which the appellant was absent from service. We see no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondent no.7, the management. The resolution dated 22nd March 2009 was passed after the appellant failed to respond to the notice dated 27th February 2009. In spite of the resolution dated 22nd March 2009, the respondent no. 7 gave one more opportunity to the appellant by sending a reminder on 6th April 2009. The impugned order was made more than six months thereafter. Thus, the appellant was given adequate opportunity. In above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly rejected writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)