CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9627 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SURENDRA KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD JHA, RESIDENT OF JANAKI NAGAR, HANUMAN NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. -----------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL BUDDHA MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL, BUDDHA MARG, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL, BUDDHA MARG, PATNA. 4. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR 5. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 6. THE DIRECTOR, DISTANCE EDUCATION, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA ----------------------------(Respondents) For The Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.SINHA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar School Examination Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board) which has taken over the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna by virtue of the provisions contained in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council(Repeal) Act, 2007. 2. Petitioner earlier served as Assistant in the Correspondence Institute of Patna University. He was deputed to serve the Bihar Intermediate Council, Patna(hereinafter referred to as the Council) under order 2 dated 18.10.1982, Annexure-5. Later his services were absorbed in the Council vide office order dated 9.5.1989, Anenxure-10 on the post of Section Officer with effect from 6.12.1988, subject to approval of the parent employer. Still later the parent employer granted its approval and the Council in the light of the approval granted by the parent employer issued order dated 26.6.1990, Annexure- 11 absorbing the services of the petitioner on the post of Section Officer. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2003, Annexure-1 passed by the Council, whereunder his services have been repatriated to the parent employer. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner having been absorbed in the service of the Council with the approval of the parent employer, it is not open for the Council to cancel the absorption and cancellation of absorption would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that repatriation of the petitioner is not only causing financial loss to the petitioner but also causing loss in his status as after his absorption in the Council petitioner has been promoted on the post of Assistant Secretary. 4. Counsel for the Board has opposed the 3 submission. She states that absorption of the petitioner in the service of the Council was subject to approval of the parent employer and as the approval did not come, the authorities of the Council chose to repatriate the petitioner as it was difficult for the Council to continue the petitioner on the promoted post as his status in the Council has not yet been confirmed. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Board as also having noticed the fact that the parent employer of the petitioner has not opposed the absorption of the petitioner in the Council for more than two decade, I do not see any valid reason to cancel the absorption of the services of the petitioner made under order dated 13.6.2003, Annexure-1 and accordingly, the order dated 13.6.2003, Anexure-1 cancelling the absorption of the petitioner is set aside. 6. This writ application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 1st April, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh ( V. N. Sinha, J.)