IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
Nirmala Kunwar ... ... Petitioner [In C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1999 (P)]
Durgawati Devi ... ... Petitioner [In C.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1999 (P)]
Prakash Chandra Dwedi...Petitioner [In C.W.J.C. No. 11951 of 1998 (P)]
- VERSUS -
1. The State of Bihar,
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. District Education Officer, Palamau
... ... ... Respondents [In C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1999 (P)]
1. The State of Bihar,
2. The Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, New Secretariat,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Palamau - cum - Garhwa.
... ... ... Respondents [In C.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1999 (P)]
5. Sachita Dutta Sudhakar
6. Prem Dutta Sudhakar
7. Alka Kumari
... ... ... Proforma Respondents [In C.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1999 (P)]
1. The State of Bihar,
2. The Secretary, Secondary Education and Adult Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. District Education Officer, Palamau
... ... ... Respondents [In C.W.J.C. No. 11951 of 1998 (P)]
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Tandon, S.C. - II.
C.A.V. On 09.09.2009 PRONOUNCED ON 16/09/2009
Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the Parties.
2. After the matter has been remanded by the Division Bench,
these three writ petitions have been placed for 'Admission' for fresh
consideration. The earlier order dated 14.10.1999 disposing of the three
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
2 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
writ petitions in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999
(R) has been set aside by the Division Bench.
3. The relevant facts are that by an Order dated 14.11.1998,
the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-1) in
C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1999 (P), terminated the services of 30 (thirty)
School teachers including the present three writ petitioners Anil Kumar
Tiwary, Ugrah Narayan Ram and Prakash Chandra Dwedi.
4. Several writ petitions were filed by the different writ petitioners
challenging the same very order dated 14.11.1998 passed by the Director,
Secondary Education. As it appears that the first writ petition was filed by
Krishna Kumar Tiwari being C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999 (R) at Ranchi
Bench of Patna High Court. The said Writ Petition was allowed by order
dated 23.08.1999 holding that pursuant to the advertisement made in
January, 1990, the name of the writ petitioner was forwarded by the
Employment Exchange after his name was selected for Interview and
the Additional Director of Education, Ranchi was competent to make
appointment and therefore, the ground for termination from service of
the petitioner as mentioned in the order dated 14.11.1998 was nonest.
Accordingly, the same was set aside and the writ petitioner Krishna
Kumar Tiwari was directed to be reinstated to the post of Clerk with back
wages. This order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999 (R) was
challenged by the State by filing Letter Patent Appeal No. 469 of 1999
(R) but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated
02.03.2000
. The State, thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed by order dated
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
3 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
19.01.2000. Therefore, it appears that the order of the Single Bench
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999 (R) was affirmed by the Division
Bench in L.P.A as well as by the Supreme Court in Special Leave
Petition.
5. Thereafter, as it appears that one Abhay Kumar Sinha,
whose service was also terminated by the aforesaid order dated
14.11.1998, filed C.W.J.C. No. 2284 of 1998 and the said Writ Petition
was also allowed by order dated 20.09.1999 and the petitioner was
directed to be reinstated with full back wages.
6. On similar grounds, the other teachers whose services were
also terminated by same order dated 14.11.1998 approached the High
Court by filing several writ petitions and in all the writ petitions
mentioned below, their termination order was set aside and they were
directed to be reinstated in service:-
i. C.W.J.C. No. 521 of 1999 [Smt. Renu Mishra Vs. State of Bihar
and others] – Allowed on 24.01.2001.
ii. C.W.J.C. No. 4206 of 1999 [Shailesh Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar and others] – Allowed on 08.03.2000.
7. It appears that during pendency of the present writ petitions,
writ petitioner Anil Kumar Tiwary of C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1999 died and
as such, after deleting his name, in his place, name of his wife Nirmala
Kunwar has been substituted by order dated 11.10.2006.
Similarly, it appears that the writ petitioner Ugrah Narayan
Ram of C.W.J.C. No. 412 of 1999 also died during pendency of the writ
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
4 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
petition and in his place, the name of his widow Durgawati Devi has
been substituted.
8. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that the case of the present three writ petitioners
are exactly similar to the other persons whose writ petitions were
allowed and, their order of termination have been set aside and they
have been ordered to be reinstated and they are working.
So far as these writ petitioners are concerned, their case is
also that after the advertisement was issued, their names were sent by
the Employment Exchange and after Interview, their names were
recommended for appointment. It is only after following the procedures
for appointment, they were appointed and, therefore, the order of
termination from service contained in the order dated 14.11.1998, was
illegal.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned S.C. – II, by
citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar
Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65
and in the case of General Manager, Uttranchal Jal Sansthan Vs.
Laxmi Devi and others and analogus cases reported in (2009) 7 SCC
205 as well as the Order dated 17.07.2006 passed by learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7071 of 2005 which was affirmed in
L.P.A. No. 395 of 2006 by order dated 12.06.2007, has submitted that
the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
5 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
He submitted that one Chandra Bhushan Singh also filed
W.P.(S) No. 7071 of 2005 challenging the same very order dated
14.11.1998, which has been challenged by these writ petitioners. A
Single Bench of this Court, by order dated 17.07.2006, dismissed the
said writ petition on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not
called for from the Employment Exchange nor the advertisement was
published in the News Paper and no Interview letter was issued to the
candidate for appearing before the Selection Board and without
following these procedures, the Regional Deputy Director of Education
appointed him and, therefore, the order of appointment was illegal and
void ab initio. The learned Single Judge relied on a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Mr. Manoj Tandon has heavily relied on a recent decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan
Singh and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 and has submitted that
the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal since prior to their
appointment, due procedure for appointment was not followed,
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. He further
submitted that only because the petitioners have continued in service for
a long time, would not validate their illegal appointment.
10. From perusal of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others
(Supra), cited by Mr. Tandon, it appears that it has been held therein
that if the initial appointment of a person is made without any
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
6 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
advertisement, without calling for his name from the Employment
Exchange, without holding any interview, then that would amount to
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
11. After going through the different orders produced before me
by the counsel for the parties which have already been noticed above, I
find that the case of the present writ petitioners stand on the similar
footings to that of C.W.J.C. No. 521 of 1999 [Smt. Renu Mishra Vs.
State of Bihar and others – Allowed on 24.01.2001] and C.W.J.C. No.
4206 of 1999 [Shailesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others –
Allowed on 08.03.2000].
In the present case, the specific case of the petitioners are
that there was an advertisement and pursuant thereto, the petitioners
applied for appointment. Their names were also sent by the
Employment Exchange and, thereafter, they were selected for
appointment against vacant posts after following the due procedure for
appointment. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is not similar to the
order passed in the case of Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and others [W.P.(S) No. 7071 of 2005] cited on behalf of the
respondent State since after following due procedure for public
appointment the petitioners were appointed. Thus, the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh
and others (Supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Therefore, the ground for termination of the services
of the writ petitioner mentioned in order dated 14.11.1998 of the
C.W.J.C. NO. 275 OF 1999 (P)
7 WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 412 OF 1999 (P)
WITH
C.W.J.C. NO. 11951 OF 1998 (P)
Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna to the effect that the initial
appointment of the petitioner is bad, is held to be nonest.
12. Accordingly, all the above mentioned three Writ Petitions
are allowed. The orders dated 14.11.1998 passed by the Director,
Primary Education terminating the services of the petitioners is hereby
set aside. Since the petitioners Anil Kumar Tiwari and Ugrah Narayan
Ram have already died and, therefore, there is no question of their
reinstatement. However, the respondents are directed to pay
consequential benefits to the widows of petitioners Anil Kumar Tiwari [in
C.W.J.C. No. 275 of 1999 (P)] and Ugrah Narayan Ram [in C.W.J.C. No.
412 of 1999 (P)].
So far Prakash Chandra Dwedi [Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.
11961 of 1998 (P)] is concerned, he is directed to be reinstated in
service with all back wages.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
RC/