RAM PRAWESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellant was given appointment by the Additional Deputy Director of Education, Government of Bihar and his services were terminated vide order dated 14th November, 1998 (Annexure- 1). By the same order dated 14th November, 1998 services of 30 similarly situated employees were also terminated. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all those employees preferred writ petitions before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna high Court and those petitions were allowed and employees were reinstated, in view of the different orders passed in their favour. The petitioner-appellant placed on record the copies of three such orders passed. by the Single Bench in favour of such employees as Annexure-8, Annexure-8/A and Annexure-8/B but the learned Single Judge violating all propriety refused to follow the judgments delivered by the Coordinate Bench by merely saying that the learned Single Judge is not in agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench in the said judgments, Annexures-8 and 8/A and not only that, but refused to accept the orders passed in the L.P.A., on the ground that no reason has been given in the order by the Division Bench while confirming the order of the learned Single Bench. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thereafter the State preferred the SLP before the Supreme Court, challenging the order passed in L.P.A. and that SLP was dismissed vide order dated 19th January, 2001, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-20. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge in this case was of the view that the procedure was not followed by the Additional Deputy Director of Education while giving the appointment to the petitioner-appellant and the Additional Deputy Director of Education was not competent to give appointment; whereas in the case of Krishna Kumar Tiwary, in his earlier round of litigation, writ petition of Krishna Kumar Tiwary being C.W.J.C. No. 82 of 1999(R) was allowed vide order dated 23rd August. 1999, however, giving liberty to the State to follow the procedure and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, even of termination of services of the said Krishna Kumar Tiwary. The said Krishna Kumar Tiwary was reinstated in the services in the light of the order of the High Court dated 23rd August, 1999 passed in CWJC No. 82 of 1999(R) but his service was again terminated vide order dated 6th May, 2004. The said Krishna Kumar Tiwary approached Jharkhand High Court (after creation of Jharkhand State) by preferring WP(S) No. 3537 of 2004 and said writ petition was also allowed vide order dated 17th August. 2006, wherein again it has been reiterated that Additional Deputy Director, Education was competent to give appointment as well as it has been held that substantial procedure of giving appointment was complied with by the said authority.

(3.) In view of the above reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th April, 2003 deserves to be set aside as the same is contrary, not only of the decision of the Coordinate Judge but also contrary to the several decisions given in relation to the same order dated 14th November, 1998, which has been set aside for all rest of the employees, who preferred writ petitions.