JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 3.8.2002 (Annexure 14) whereby the order dated 30th of August, 1988, recognising the service of the petitioner as Primary School Teacher has been rescinded.
2. The case as a chequered history. According to the petitioner, his case for appointment as Assistant Teacher was considered by the Governing Body of Girls Primary School, Sihaul in its meeting held on 15.9.1970 and it resolved to appoint him as Assistant Teacher on the monthly emoluments of Rs. 46/-. Petitioner was to join the service by 26.9.1970. Petitioner’s date of birth is 9.12.1953, meaning thereby that on the date he was to join the service, he was less than 17 years of age.
3. Girls Primary School, Sihaul (hereinafter referred to as the school) was taken over under the provisions of Non Government Elementary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1976. The Director of Primary Education by its letter dated 30th of August, 1988 (Annexure 2), recognised the service of the petitioner besides one Sada Nand Shah in the scale of pay of Matric untrained Teacher. However, while passing the aforesaid order, Director directed for examining as to whether the petitioner was appointed before 1.1.1971 and further to verify the certificate in regard to the educational qualification. The Director further observed to examine as to whether petitioner is in continuous service and students teachers ratio justifies his appointment. Making a grievance that the school in question has been taken over but the petitioner is not being paid the salary, petitioner along with other persons filed CWJC No. 13360 of 1992 (Udit Narayan Jha and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court. This Court by order dated 29.7.1993 (Annexure 4) disposed of the writ application with the following direction:
“Accordingly, we direct that if the petitioners file a representation setting out all the facts within 10 days from today then the said representation should be disposed of by the learned Director in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of such filing of representation.”
4. In the light of the aforesaid order the cases of the petitioner besides other teachers were considered by the Director of Primary Education, who by his order dated 5.5.1994 (Annexure 5) observed that petitioner besides few other teachers shall not be entitled for salary. The Director further recommended to the State Government to cancel the order of the Director of Primary Education recognising the service of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner besides other teachers filed CWJC 3223 of 1995 (Udit Narayan Jha and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court. This Court by order dated 23.5.1996 (Annexure 6) directed the Director of Primary Education to pass fresh order in the light of the guidelines given by this Court in its order dated 29.1993 passed in CWJC No. 13360 of 1992 and analogous cases. Claim of the petitioner was again examined in the light of the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 3223 1995 and again by order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure 8), petitioner’s claim was rejected. Petitioner assailed the said order before this Court in CWJC, No. 9352 of 1996 (Udit Narayan Jha and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and by order dated 28.8.1998, aforesaid order was set aside.
5. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State Government against the aforesaid order was registered as LPA No. 1351 of 1998 and when the said matter was taken up on 15.9.1999, the appellant prayed for withdrawal of the appeal, which was accorded. Thereafter, the State filed MJC No. 377 of 2001 for recall of the said order and prayed that the word ‘withdrawn’ be substituted by the word ‘dismissed’, which prayer was declined by order dated 13.7.2001.
6. As stated earlier by letter dated 30th of August, 1988 (Annexure 2), the service of the petitioner besides one Sada Nand Sah was recognised as Assistant Teacher in the Matric untrained scale and said Sada Nand Sah filed CWJC No. 10817 of 2002 (Sada Nand Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) before this Court for payment of salary relying on the aforesaid letter dated 30th of August, 1988 of the Director by which petitioner and his services were recognised. This Court by order dated 26.2.2002 dismissed the writ application in the following words :
The letter dated 30.8.88 (supra) makes an interesting reading. It states that the petitioner’s services are being approved in the matric trained scale on fulfillment of certain conditions, such as, that the appointment was prior to 1.1.71, that he possesses the requisite qualification and that he has been continuously working on the post. The order further states that salary can be paid only after being satisfied that the petitioner fulfills those conditions.
I am not able to appreciate as to how the services of a teacher could be approved in a blanket manner with a direction for inquiry on points which constitute the crux of a valid appointment/absorption/approval order and go to the root of the matter. It may be mentioned that in terms of the relevant government order teachers who were appointed by private Managing Committee prior to 1.1.71 and possessing the requisite qualification and continuously working were eligible for approval of their services. That seems to have shown light to the then Director. The date of alleged initial appointment i.e. 1.1.71 apparently has been mentioned to bring the petitioner’s case with the framework of government order. Counsel submitted that in similar cases in which services had been approved by the same Director, pursuant to direction of this Court, positive orders have been passed and, therefore, the authorities should be directed to make inquiry about the validity of his appointment. In the facts and circumstances, briefly indicated above, I am not able to appreciate as to on what basis the Court should direct inquiry. It is beyond my comprehension that the petitioner would be working on the post for over 13 years without payment of salary even for a single day. The claim of the petitioner appears to be bogus and belated, and he is not entitled to the relief.
The appeal as also the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order had also failed.
7. When the order passed by this Court in the case of Sada Nand Sah came to its notice, the State Government by the impugned letter dated 3rd of August, 2002 rescinded the order dated 30th of August, 1988 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the Matric untrained scale. It is this order of the State Government which is under challenge before this Court.
8. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that so far as the appointment of this petitioner is concerned, same was tested and tested several times by the authority and by this Court and as such the decision rendered by this Court, inter se shall be binding on the party and the order recognising the petitioner’s service should not have been rescinded, only on the ground that in case of another employee, the order of recognition was found to be bogus by this Court.
9. JC to SC III, however, contends that this Court in the previous writ application had not expressed any opinion or adjudicated the issue of recognition or validity of the petitioner’s appointment and as such the State did not err in rescinding the recognition granted to the petitioner which is by the same order by which, Sada Nand Sah was granted recognition and has been found to be bogus by this Court.
10. Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Singh. Had there been final adjudication in regard to validity of recognition of the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant teacher same would have been binding, inter se, the party. It is relevant here to state that this Court while quashing the order dated 12.8.1996 has not held that the petitioner’s appointment is valid or its recognition in accordance with law. The right of the petitioner flows from the order of the Director dated 30th of August, 1988 which has been found to be bogus by this Court.
11. Mr, Singh then contends that the order dated 30th of August, 1988 has merged into several orders which, were passed later on and even if the order dated 30th of August, 1988 has been found to be bogus by this Court that shall not affect the petitioner’s right. As stated earlier, the right of the petitioner flows from the said letter. At no point of time said order has been found to be legal by this Court, in case, inter se, and as such this submission has no force.
12. Mr. Singh, then contends that the impugned order has been passed without considering the earlier orders passed by this Court in the case between the parties and the State is bound by the direction in which petitioner as also the State is party. He further submits that the order impugned has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and that itself vitiates the order.
13. I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Singh also. I may state that had this Court earlier gone into the validity and recognition of the petitioner’s appointment, the order passed by this Court in the case of Sada Nand Sah would not have any bearing and I would have upheld the contention of the petitioner. However, as stated earlier there was no final adjudication in regard to the appointment and recognition of the petitioner’s service and as such the observation of this Court in the case of Sada Nand Sah was rightly taken into account to rescind the order of recognition.
14. As regards the grievance in regard to not furnishing the opportunity of hearing, I am of the opinion that also does not deserve to be accepted. It is well settled that principle of natural justice is not an unrully horse and its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In my opinion, it shall be ridiculous to uphold the petitioner’s recognition, which was’ granted by the same order as that of Sada Nand Sah, and this Court in the writ application filed by him was severely criticised and found the said order bogus. This Court exercising the power of judicial review is a Court of equity and consistency is its virtue. In case the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted, this virtue shall be in peril.
15. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and is dismissed accordingly, but without any order as to cost.