CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10266 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India BINOD KUMAR THAKUR son of Sri Mahabir Thakur, resident of Mohalla Maulaganj Naka No.6, P.S.- Lahariasarai, District- Darbhanga Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR 3. HEAD MASTER, TIRHUT ACADEMY, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR For The Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, JC to GP XV **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA S.K.SINHA,J. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. The petitioner, through this writ application, has assailed the order of his termination from the post of Peon vide memo no. 35 dated 28th January, 1997, as contained in Anneuxre-15 to the I.A. No. 8210 of 1998. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was initially appointed by the District Education Officer as per the memo dated 6th of May, 1982, as contained in Anneuxre-2 and his services were extended from time to time and lastly his services were extended till further orders as per the memo dated 17th February, 1984, - 2 - as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 was the competent authority to appoint which would be evident on perusal of the circular issued by the Department of Education, Government of Bihar, as contained in memo no. 705 dated 12th October, 1982, and therefore, the impugned order of termination could not have been passed by the respondent no.3 who was the Head Master of the concerned School as he had no jurisdiction to pass the order of termination in question. It is further submitted that on perusal of the order of termination it would appear that the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that his appointment was made illegally since the laid down norms for such recruitment were not followed and the said order was passed after more than fifteen years of his initial appointment. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed for ulterior purposes since the petitioner used to refuse to do the personal work of the respondent no.3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that after the notification dated 12th October, 1982 (Annexure-16) a statutory rule came into existence vide Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 and on perusal of the same it would appear that the Head Master of the concerned School is the appointing - 3 - authority with respect to the employee under class IV like the Peon etc., and as such, the order of termination does not suffers from lack of jurisdiction. In the light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 and the copy of the service book annexed therewith it is submitted that the petitioner appears to be irresponsible in discharge of his duty besides the illegality in his initial appointment. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to represent his case before the respondent no.2, who is the Controlling Officer of the respondent no.3. In this view of the matter, the petitioner, as submitted, may represent his case before the respondent no.2. In case petitioner files a representation before the respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from today, the respondent no.2 shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation along with the certified copy of the present order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations and directions. The Patna High Court The 7th of January, 2009 Manish/N.A.F.R. ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)