Jharkhand High Court
Madhuri Kumari And Ors. And Renu Kumari vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 September, 2002
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In these two writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.11.1994 passed by the Director, Secondary Education. Government of Bihar, Patna, by which their services has been terminated.
2. The petitioners' case is that in the year 1991, the Director Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, vide letter dated 20.04.1991 and the School Inspectress-cum-Deputy Inspectress of Schools, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 4.10.1991 directed for appointment of teachers in the Government Girls Middle School, Chatra (In short "School") after performing all the procedures and norms of appointment in accordance with law. Pursuant to that direction the District Inspectress of School, Hazaribagh, vide letter dated 21.1.94 invited applications from the matric trained lady candidates for appointment on the post of teachers in the said School. It is stated that the petitioners applied for appointment along with other candidates and after complying all the recruitment rules including the written test and interview, a final select list was issued vide office order dated 20.3.92 under the signature of District Inspectors of School appointing the petitioners on the post of teachers in the said School.
3. It appears that Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on the basis of complaint made by other candidates issued a letter dated 2.9.1992 directing the District Inspectress of School not to take work from the teachers so appointed till further order from the Government. In pursuance of the said order Headmistress of the School terminated the services of the petitioners vide letter dated 3.9.1992. The petitioner approached this Court against the aforesaid order of termination by filing CWJC No. 2906/92(R). In the said writ petition, the respondents appeared and contended that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with recruitment rules and the services have been rightly terminated. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of letter dated 7.4.93 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Director Secondary Education in respect of their grievances and the Director in turn will consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioners accordingly approached the Director, Secondary Education by filing representation. The Director, Secondary Education after considering the representation of the petitioners and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing rejected the representation holding that the appointment itself was in violation of the rules and the procedures. Accordingly the Director issued an order of termination of services of the petitioners. The said order of the Director is impugned in this writ petition.
4. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of the Director as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the reasons assigned in the impugned order is absolutely against the law and beyond the records. Learned counsel contended that there was no stipulation in the advertisement, inviting applications, that the appointment would be only for three months. Learned counsel submits that the Director, Secondary Education has not applied his mind and has taken into consideration extraneous matters.
5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar (G.P. IV) on the other hand submitted that after perusal of the reports and after hearing the learned Advocates on behalf of the petitioners the Director found that there were so many illegalities committed in the matter of appointment. Learned counsel submitted that the advertisement inviting applications was not published in the Newspaper and was affixed on the notice board in the local offices. It was further contended that there was specific direction for appointment for three months only by the District Inspectress of School but she made appointment of the petitioners for indefinite period.
6. From perusal of the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education it appears that although the Inspectress of School was directed to make appointment for a limited period of three months but ignoring the said direction steps were taken for making regular appointment. Even for making regular appointment advertisement either in the Newspaper or by publication for inviting suitable candidates was not made nor the roaster clearance with regard to the reservation was followed. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner after making necessary inspection and inquiry found that these appointments were not made in accordance with the rules.
7. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drawn my attention to regulation 868 of Bihar Education Code in support of his submission that District Inspectress of School is the appointing authority. From perusal of the letter of appointment issued to the petitioners it appears that the petitioners were sought to be appointed as Matric Trained Teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. Neither the Education Code nor any of the rules empowers District Inspectress of school to be the appointing authority in respect of appointment to the post of Matric Trained Teachers. The appointment of the petitioners by the District Inspectress of School is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Director Secondary Education rightly held that the services of the petitioners are liable to be terminated. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Director, Secondary Education. No relief can be granted to the petitioners. These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.