MANJU KUMARI SINHA WIFE OF YUGESHWAR PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Initially when this writ application was filed on 2.9.2008 the petitioner's prayer was plain and simple that her joining on the post of Assistant Teacher on which she was appointed in the year 1982 by an order dated 20.3.1982 and on which she had continued at least till 2.11.1998 without any break should be accepted. As a matter of fact in the writ application it was explained that on or after 2.11.1998 the petitioner's condition of health had deteriorated and she became a mental case, whereafter she was required to undergo specialized treatment and when no improvement could be made at Bhagalpur she was admitted in Central Institute of Psychiatry at Ranchi where she made some improvement only after June, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ application that she had submitted her joining report on 25.6.2001 but the same was not accepted by the authorities.

(2.) A writ application filed after seven years of the cause of action by the petitioner for acceptance of joining would definitely give rise to a strong suspicion that the condition of the petitioner had never improved or that the petitioner was not really willing to work even after her so called recovery in the year 2001. The plea of the petitioner that she had kept on filing representation after 25.6.2001 would also be of no avail taking into account that this writ application was filed for acceptance of her joining only on 2.9.2008.

(3.) The respondents, however, in the counter affidavit have explained that the petitioner became unauthorizedly absent from duty since 2.11.1998 and thereafter the first information about her could be gathered only through the writ application when a copy thereof was served on the office of the respondents. It has also been explained that thereafter the petitioner was given several show cause notice, as contained in Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' series' and in fact even a newspaper notice published in the month of October, 2009 did not evoke any response from the petitioner. The respondents have accordingly explained that when the petitioner had adopted the defiant attitude and did not even participate in the departmental proceeding initiated against her, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled both on the ground of her remaining absent from duty as also she being not equipped with proper education and training qualification necessary for appointment on the post of teacher.