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.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Pawan/-