IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1081 of 2008 Harendra Prasad Mandal, S/O Sri Ram Parikha Singh, resident of Village- Patnawa, P.O. Padwara, P.S.- Jahmaur, District- Aurangabad (Bihar)……………………………………………………....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad. 6. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad………..Respondents. ----------- 3. 01.12.10. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the Memo No. 942 dated 24.11.2006 as contained in Annexure-7, whereby the initial order of termination of service of the petitioner was maintained since the appointment was made without following the procedure hence the petitioner and others similarly situated persons were held not entitled for the salary of intervening period. The quashing of the appellate order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna, issued vide Memo No. 815 dated 01.11.2007 as contained in Annexure-8 has also been prayed 2 for whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the termination order has been rejected. The prayer for reinstatement in service and consequential financial benefits has also been made. The petitioner was appointed by the then Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, as contained in Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 514 dated 24.03.1993 as clerk on purely temporary and ad hoc basis. The appointment letter stipulated that the appointment is absolutely temporary and on the orders of the Directorate, the order of appointment will be deemed to be annulled in following words: “Yah purnatah asthai vyabastha hai tatha nedeshalay astar par anyatra adesh prapt hone par ise bikhandit samasjha jayega.” Consequently, the petitioner was posted in the office of the Principal, Womens Primary Teachers’ Training College, Sabour. Subsequently, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, by his letter under Memo No. 1396 dated 06.09.2004 informed the Director Administration-cum- Deputy Director of Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna, that the 3 concerned Deputy Education Officer and the District Superintendent of Education had been directed to stop taking work from a number of clerks including the petitioner, the copy of the said letter was also transmitted to the petitioner directing the petitioner to hand over the charge. Consequently, the aforesaid order came to be challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 12234 of 2004. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide Memo No. 488 dated 21.04.2005. The termination order was challenged by way of amendment. This Hon’ble Court set aside the order of termination and allowed the writ application with liberty to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The payment of salary etc. however, was directed to be abided by ultimate decision taken by the authorities. The whole exercise was directed to be completed within six months. In pursuance to the High Court’s direction the matter was heard by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, the petitioner was show caused and after 4 considering show cause the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, vide Memo No. 942 dated 24.11.2006 came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the petitioner will be maintained since no procedure of appointment has been followed and the petitioner is not entitled for any salary for intervening period. Against the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed off vide Memo No. 815 dated 01.11.2007 on the ground that the appointment was absolutely temporarily which was subject to be terminated on the orders of the Directorate and there is no paper with regard to the advertisement, following the procedures of appointment particularly the reservation rules. The order of termination and the appellate order are impugned orders before this court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed in 1993 and uninterruptly continued till 2004 in the meantime petitioner passed noting and drafting examination and contributed in G.P.F. Admittedly, from Annexure-1, it appears that the petitioner was appointed absolutely on a temporary basis subject to automatic 5 cancellation of the appointment on the orders of the Directorate moreover there is nothing on record that the petitioner was appointed on sanctioned post or the appointment was made after following the norms of the appointment. It is true that the appointment was made in 1993 but in 2004 the petitioner was restrained from working and was terminated in 2005 but there is nothing on record that the service of the petitioner was ever regularized. Hence, in terms of the stipulation in the appointment letter as quoted above and the fact that the petitioner not only failed to produce any document before the respondent authorities with regard to the genuineness of his appointment but also failed to place anything on record before this Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the termination order. Hence, the writ application is dismissed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)