Patna High Court
Awani Kant Jha And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 11 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(1)BLJR603
JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. There are 67 petitioners in the present writ petition, They have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 12-1-1989 (Annexure 1) passed by the Respondent, Director, Primary Education and the letter of termination dated 15-12-1989 (Annexure 2) issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, Respondent No. 4 and for consequential reliefs.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were first appointed as teachers in the Elementary Schools sometime in the year 1982. Petitioners No. 1 to 26 claim to be disabled persons and petitioners No. 27 to 67 are science teachers. The petitioners claim that they were appointed in deviation of the general rules of appointment because of relaxation granted by the Government in respect of the above two categories of teachers during the relevant period. Admittedly in 1984-85, after some enquiry at the Government level, with regard to irregularities committed in respect of those appointments, the appointments of the petitioners was cancelled. According to the petitioners they were again appointed as teachers on 5-5-1989 pursuant to a select list prepared by the Establishment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Respondent No. 3. One of the appointment letters has been filed as Annexure 14/A to this writ petition. The Government having learnt about the re-appointment of these petitioners took a serious view of the matter. By the impugned order dated 12th December, 1989, as contained in Annexure 1, the Respondent Director, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, expressing his resentment on the appointment of the petitioners the same being in the teeth of the earlier decision of the Government declaring their first appointment to be illegal. According to the Director, in view of the Government policy, untrained teachers could not have been appointed in Elementary Schools. Accordingly, it was directed that the appointments of the petitioners made pursuant to the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 5-5-1989, which was contrary to the Government Rules, should be immediately cancelled. Consequent upon this direction, the Respondent, Direct Superintendent the Education, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners by the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 2.
3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has sought to assail the impugned orders on various grounds. But in my view; it is not necessary to enter into greater details of the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners and the Respondents, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. . In Shrawan Kumar's case (Supra) the appellants, who were 175 in number, were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. But by order dated November 2, 1988, the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled the appointment on the ground that the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to make appointment. It was a device of by passing the reservations and the conditions which were part of appointment orders were not complied with. The Supreme Court in the said case has held that,--
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointment. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well-settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the Rules of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order of cancellation dated November 3, 1988, on this short ground. As suggested by the learned Solicitor General, we direct the Secretary (Education), Government of Bihar or other person nominated by him, should give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and thereafter give a finding as to whether the appellants were validly appointed as assistant teachers. He shall also determine as to whether any of the teachers joined their respective schools and for how much duration. In case some of them joined their services and worked, they shall be entitled to their salary for such period.
In the present case as well, it is an admitted position, as it appears from the statements made in Para 57 of the writ petition and in Para 26 of the counter-affidavit that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before cancellation of their appointments. Therefore, respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, it is directed that the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, or any other person nominated by him should give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter give a finding as to whether the petitioners were validly appointed as teachers. In case it is found that the petitioners have not been paid their salary for any period during which they had actually worked, the Respondents will take necessary steps for disbursing their salary for such period expeditiously.
4. The writ application is, accordingly disposed of on the terms indicated above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.