(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the order dated 11th of November, 1999 (Annexure -12) whereby the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher has been terminated.
(2.) FACTS necessary for the decision of the present writ application are that by order dated 15th of June, 1985 (Annexure 1), petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Matric untrained scale and posted at Government Basic School, Dharampur, in the district of Samastipur. Lateron, by order dated 3rd of June, 1989 (Annexure 3), services of 26 teachers were terminated which included Nirmala Sinha, Suresh Chandra Jha, Ramprit Thakur, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Md. Ashfaque, Renu Kumari, Mahboob Alam, Amir Chandra Manjhu, Abdul Karim, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Ujagar Mahto, Quamruzzaman and Amrendra Bahadur as also the petitioner. Petitioner, Deo Nath Singh, aggrieved by the same, preferred CWJC No. 6469 of 1989 before this Court. It seems that in view of stay order passed by this Court by order dated 7th of February, 1990 (Annexure 5), petitioner was re -instated in service till further orders. The writ application filed by the petitioner ultimately came up for consideration and by order dated 24.6.1991 (Annexure 4), the order terminating his service was quashed on the ground that before doing so, petitioner was not given opportunity. However, writ application filed by other persons remained pending and CWJC No. 6543 of 1989, Ramesh Kumar Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., and CWJC No. 6577 of 1989; Amirchand Manjhi and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., were disposed of by common order dated 7th of August, 1997 (Annexure 10), inter alia, observing as follows : "6. Having heard the parties, I direct the authorities to take into note the subsequent development and Acts that the petitioners have now obtained qualification of training and further taking into note that they are continuing in the services for about eleven years, they will decide the issue taking a lenient view in the matter. It is further observed that the impugned order dated 3rd January, 1989 having not been given effect to for about eight years, the same shall not be given effect at this belated stage." It seems that similar orders have been passed in the writ petitions filed by other Assistant Teachers whose services were terminated. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it has been admitted that in view of such orders passed by this Court, several Assistant Teachers are still in service. It is relevant here to state that while setting aside the order of termination dated 2nd of June, 1989, this Court gave opportunity to the respondents for taking action in accordance with law, in view of the opportunity given, a show cause notice was issued and ultimately, by the impugned order, his service has been terminated on the ground that the authority by whom the petitioner was appointed, is not the competent authority, petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification that is, training for appointment and before appointing the petitioner, neither any advertisement was issued nor the names were celled for from the Employment Exchange or merit list was prepared by the Divisional Establishment Committee. Petitioner was sent for training but before he could appear and successfully pass the training examination, his service has been terminated and, therefor, he had not passed the training examination.
(3.) HAVING given my anxious considerations to the rival submission, I am of the opinion that upholding the termination of the service of the petitioner shall be wholly inequitable. In respect of other teachers similarly situated, this Court observed that teachers having continued in the service for about eleven years, the issue of termination of service be decided taking a lenient view. It is not in dispute that those teachers have been allowed to continue in service. I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be relegated to the same fate as those of the teachers who are still continuing in view of the observation made by this Court.