M.Y.EQBAL.J. - (1.) IN all these writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved and, therefore, these writ petitions have been heard and disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the office orders dated 23.2.2002 'and 26.2.2002, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 the Secretary, Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi whereby the petitioners have been relieved from their duties who were working on the post of Assistant/Routine Clerk. These petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1994 on casual basis as Assistant/Routine Clerk by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council on consolidated wages of Rs. 1500/1200, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 3500/2400. The petitioners were allotted the work of examination/registration relating to South Chotanagpur Division Through allotment chart issued by Respondent No. 3 dated 3.12.2001. It is contended that in the last examination due to mistake of the printer, in some centers, the question papers kept in the sealed packet were found shortage which was clearly a mistake of the printer. Similarly the answer books were also supplied by the same printer and were found missing. Although the petitioners were diligent in the discharge of their duty but all of a sudden the petitioners received the office order dated 26.2.02 issued by Respondent No. 3 by the order of the Administrator whereby several allegations were made against the petitioners and they were relieved from the work of Assistant/ Routine Clerk with immediate effect.
(3.) MR . M.S. Anwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal, capricious and mala fide. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioners were appointed on casual basis in 1994, but after the creation of the State of Jharkhand and Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council the petitioners were given pay scale vide office order dated 7.1.2002. Not only that in 1999 posts were advertised and petitioners were interviewed. Thereafter a panel was prepared for regularization of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in any view of the matter the impugned order is punitive in nature and therefore, liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2000 Vol. 3 SCC 239.;