TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.2.2003 as contained in Annexure -34 by which the respondent No. 5 terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed that after quashing of the aforementioned order, he be reinstated in service with full back wages. One of the most important points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after having spent 14 years in a regular and in a confirmed position in the Department of Education, the respondents could not have terminated his service without following the elaborate procedure laid down for that purpose. The other points which have been argued with equal emphasis are that the petitioner was in fact appointed in a regular manner and in accordance with the rules and/or Circulars that were prevalent at that time and that there was no occasion for the respondents to come to a conclusion that his initial appointment was bad. It has further been urged that the respondents have not only dispensed with the procedure but have also totally ignored all principles of natural justice and/or equity and fair play.
(3.) MR . Raj Nandan Sahay, learned Sr. Standing Counsel No. II on the other hand, submitted that while making appointment of the petitioner, his name was not called from the Local Employment Exchange and this itself was a contravention of the policy decision and/or the Circular that was prevalent at that period and since this elementary requirement was not met while making the appointment in favour of the petitioner, it must be deemed that there has been a total departure from the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the backdrop of the arguments of the respective counsels, it would be necessary to notice the facts as pleaded and/or as is evident from the documents brought on record.;