KESHAB PAHARIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order vide memo No. 425 dated 12.8.1997(Annexure -6) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated without any show cause or reasons. Petitioner has also made further prayer to pay the arrears of salary since February to August, 1997.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed vide Annexure -3 dated 24.11.1990 as Assistant Teacher (Matric) on a pay scale of Rs. 945 -1540 in Primary School at Mahuagarhi on daily wages by the order of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. A recommendation was made by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide letter No. 256 dated 16.7.1993 to the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar for considering the case of the petitioner and others for regularization as they have been working since long, i.e. in the case of this petitioner since the year 1990. However, vide annexure -6, petitioner and 7 other persons have been terminated from service by order of the Special Officer, Paharia Welfare, Dumka on the directions of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division through his letter dated 12.8.1997(Annexure -6).

(3.) RESPONDENTS have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that the policies relating to appointment to Class -III and IV post have been changed by the Government of Bihar, Welfare Department and now appointment in class - III post have to be made out of the successful candidate selected through competitive examination by the recruiting body. The petitioner was only engaged on daily wages post in the Primary School, Mahuagarhi by the order of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide memo 24.11.1990 and after the change in the policies of the State Government, now appointment can only be made on the basis of open advertisement. The appointment of the petitioner is itself being terminated in the year 1997 and now petitioner cannot seek reliance on the order passed related to other persons in the year 1998 as he himself has approached this Court after about 6 years after his termination and much water has flown thereafter. It is submitted that in the matter of any public appointment equal opportunity to all through the procedure of open advertisement, written test, interview etc. is to be followed and, therefore, petitioner being only engaged in daily wages cannot claim to be regularized on that account, more so when order of termination was passed in 1997 itself due to change in the policy of the State Government.