MD.JAVED KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are three petitioners in CWJC No. 12160 of 2003 and a single one in CWJC No. 12695 of 2003. All of them seek to challenge identical office orders, dated 14.8.2003 (under different memos in respect of each of them) issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. By the impugned orders issued in pursuance of the decision of the Establishment Committee the services of the four petitioners were terminated with immediate effect on the ground that their appointments were illegal.

(2.) THE material facts on record leave no room for doubt that each of the four petitioner was appointed on the Class III post of Clerk in a thoroughly illegal manner. The appointments of the three, petitioners in CWJC No. 12160 of 2003 were made by identical office orders, dated 22.10.1992 (Annexure 3 series) issued by the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. In the office orders it was stated that the three petitioners, who were not in Government employment, were appointed till further orders as clerks in the office of the Subdivisional Education Officer, Bhabua in light of the letter, dated 26.3.1992 from the Chief Minister 'sSecretariat and on the basis of the direction of the Dy. Secretary in the Chief Minister 'sSecretariat. Following their "appointments", petitioners 1 and 2 were transferred to different offices. The services of the three petitioners, alongwith seven others, including the single petitioner in the other case, were 'regularised ' by an order, dated 5.6.1995 issued by the Dy, Director, Secondary Education. The petitioners were working when they were given notice, dated 17.2.2003 to show cause why they should not be terminated for their appointments being illegal. On 10.3.2003 the Director, Secondary Education wrote to the Regional Dy. Director of Education intimating him about the direction to terminate the services of five people, including the four petitioners, in the two cases. Apparently no action was taken on his letter and on 17.6.2003 the Director, Secondary Education sent another letter to the Regional Dy. Director stating that no response was received to his earlier letter and asking him to terminate the services of the five people in question without any further delay so that the direction of the Chief Minister should be complied with, failing which the Government would be informed about the role of the Dy. Director himself in that connection.

(3.) THE case of the single petitioner in CWJC No. 12695 of 2003 is no different. His appointment was first made by office order, dated 12.2.1992 issued by the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Patna Division. In his appointment letter though there is no reference to any direction from the Chief Minister 'sSecretariat, it appears to be equally illegal. His appointment oh the Class III post of Clerk in the office of the Subdivisional Education Officer, Bhabua was made on a purely temporary basis for a period of three months. The period of appointment was extended by different orders. Then there is a letter from the Regional Dy. Director of Education to the Dist. Education Officer, Rohtas asking as to how the service of the petitioner could be regularised. The Dist. Education Officer gave his reply (27.9.1992) stating that in the office of the Subdivisional Education Officer, Bhabua one post of Clerk was vacant and the petitioner could be regularised against that post. An office order was then issued on 16.10.1992 by the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Patna Division 'regularising ' the petitioner 'sservice from the date of his appointment. The rest of the facts are identical to the case of the three petitioners in the other case.