IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4960 of 2009 KEDAR NATH MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 22.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner states that he as an appointee in the project school in 1984-85 phase. When his salary was stopped, he came to this Court in CWJC No. 5988 of 1999 when payment of salary was ordered. He was then terminated on 14.1.2004. He filed CWJC No. 9157 of 2003, challenging the termination which came to be allowed on 13.7.2005. LPA No. 1362 of 2005 preferred by the State on a bunch of analogous applications was referred to a three man committee which by an order dated 27.5.2008 has upheld termination of the services of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order of this Court in CWJC No. 11489 of 2008 and analogous cases disposed on 25.3.2009 with reference to the order of LPA and the nature of the direction contained therein that in view of the two conflicting earlier reports the respondents were required to re- verify facts. This necessarily entailed consideration of the earlier report in favour of the petitioner and the reason for rejection of the same which is completely wanting. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that the matter has been considered afresh by the authorities in light of the judgement of the Division Bench. 2 In CWJC no. 11489 of 2008 and analogous cases disposed on 25.3.2009 this Court after a detailed discussion of the facts of the case, the time period for which the respondents were seeking to raise issues and the direction of the Division Bench as noticed at Page 5 of the order is as follows:- “The Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1362 of 2005 and analogous cases noticed two diametrically opposite reports on facts. One, that the appointments were legal, and the second that the appointments were not legal. In this background, the Division Bench recorded that the matter required a factual probe. The direction of the Court was clear. The Respondents were required to consider both the reports on facts and then arrive at a conclusion which report was correct, for what reasons, and the reasons why one of the reports was not acceptable. If further enquiry was required, the respondents could also do so. The impugned order contains no discussion of either of the reports. It does not reject the earlier report in favour of the petitioners which the Division Bench had thought prudent not to set aside also, but directed a factual enquiry. The respondents in the garb of the Court order have refused to look into a document which they perhaps found inconvenient to deal with. This is per se evidence of arbitrariness. If the Respondents have chosen consciously, knowingly and willingly to disobey the direction of the Division Bench, they have themselves to blame for this batch of the writ applications to be allowed. The law stands settled that an order passed in teeth of an order of the Court is a nullity. If the Respondents have chosen to ignore the direction of the Division Bench, this Court has little option but to set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 on that ground.” 3 The writ application is disposed off in similar terms with like reliefs. The impugned order of termination dated 27.5.2008 likewise stands set aside. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)