Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The cause of action arose as early as in 2005.
Pursuant to the recruitment process commenced in
2005, one Sabiha Parween, respondent no. 10 in L.P.A. No. 1366
of 2012 and respondent no. 9 in L.P.A. No. 1748 of 2012, came to
be appointed for 11 months as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the
then prevalent Scheme, under the Gram Panchayat Raj- Ghusiakla,
P.S.-Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. Admittedly, the said Sabiha
Parween performed duty as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra precisely
for three days. After three days, she claims that she had applied for
maternity leave and she proceeded on maternity leave.
Since then, the said Sabiha Parween approached this
4/ 7
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 15822
of 2006. Under order dated 7th November 2007, this Court
summarily disposed of the writ petition and directed the Block
Development Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas to dispose of her
representation dated 5th February 2006.
It is apparent that the above referred facts that the
said Sabiha Parween had not served for more than three days; that
her appointment was contractual for a period of 11 months and
that the said term had expired in April 2006 were not brought to
the notice of the Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Block
Development Officer, under his order dated 18th March 2008, held
that the termination of service of the said Sabiha Parween was
contrary to the principles of natural justice and was not
sustainable. He also held that the appointment of the appellant in
place of the said Sabiha Parween was also not legal. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 10096 of 2008.
Pursuant to the report of the Block Development
Officer, the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas, under
his order dated 30th March 2009, directed the Block Education
Officer, Bikramganj to terminate the service of the appellant in
compliance with the order of the Block Development Officer.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 7850 of 2009.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these Appeals.
The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd April 2012 passed
by the learned single Judge in CWJC Nos. 10096 of 2008 and
7850 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC Nos. 10096 of 2008 and 7850 of
2009 are allowed. The impugned order dated 18th March 2008
made by the Block Development Officer, Bikramganj and the
consequential order dated 30th March 2009 made by the District
Superintendent of Education, Rohtas are quashed and set aside.