TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) REFERENCE in this case may be made to the order dated 4.2.2003 which reads as follows : "Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General. Reference in this case may be made to the order dated 12.3.2002 by which this Court had observed that in spite of several adjournments no Counter Affidavit had been filed and therefore, this Court was constrained once again to give ten more days time to the State to file necessary affidavit and also observed that in the absence of Counter Affidavit being filed within the said period, the Writ Petition will proceed in its absence. Today when the case has been called out, this Court finds the same situation prevailing and complete apathy on the part of the State. There is no Counter Affidavit till date. Consequently this Court has no option but to close the right of the State to file Counter Affidavit. Let this case be listed under the heading For Orders tomorrow."
(2.) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this Application is now taken up and is being disposed off on the basis of pleadings made in this Writ Application. Before proceeding to deliver order/judgment in this case, it would he relevant to mention that for the same relief, i.e. for quashing Annexure 18, i.e., order dated 13.4.2000, by which the petitioners services were terminated, the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 3904 of 2000 at Patna on 2.5.2000. It appears that after reorganisation of the State that case was transferred to Ranchi and in the meantime on account of said reorganisation the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 3000 of 2001 before this Court at Jharkhand. The other writ petition was filed on 11.7.2000. On 31.10.2002 Mr. J.P. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of this Court, as a result whereof on the said day it was ordered that CWJC No. 3904 of 2000 should be tagged along with W.P. (S) No. 3000 of 2001. It is thereafter that both these cases have now been listed before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, argued exclusively on the basis of pleadings made in W.P. (S) No. 3000 of 2001 which has been filed here and prayed that in view of whatever order that is passed in this case, the other case should also be governed by the same. Consequently, W.P. (S) No. 3000 of 2001 and CWJC No. 3904 of 2000 are taken up together.
(3.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 18, i.e., the order dated 13.3.2000 by which his services have been terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner states and submits that the impugned Annexure 18 has been passed on the basis of an earlier order dated 22.10.2000 (Annexure 17) which in its turn proceeds as if there was an order passed in CWJC No. 9993 of 1994. According to the petitioner, he being a matriculate typist and having been empanelled in the Sathal Pargana Col -lectorate for appointment of Class IV Post pursuant to a letter of the Personnel and Administration Department vide No. 16441 dated 3.12.1980, was recommended from the said panel vide a memo of the District Education Officer dated 18.11.1982 (Annexure 1) for appointment on a IVth Grade post in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer of Rajmahal. Subsequently, by office order dated 22.12.1982 (Annexure 2) the petitioner was regularly and in a lawful manner posted against a vacant Class IV post in the Zila School at Dumka. The petitioner has stated that there was some dispute with regard to his tenure but since his name had been recommended from the District Panel which was prepared by the District Commissioner, Dumka, he was not disturbed and was allowed to continue and he regularly received salary although his appointment was temporary.;