- (1.) In this writ application, the original prayer of the petitioner was for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate/reappoint the petitioner in service and to give him all consequential benefits by taking into account the fact that the service of the petitioner as assistant is similar to respondent no. 6, who was also terminated for the same and similar charges and has subsequently been appointed.
(2.) An amendment application bearing I.A. No. 3076 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ application, which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2012 and consequent to the same, the further prayer, which has been incorporated in the amended writ application, is for a direction upon the respondents to quash the order dated 7.12.1993 as contained in Annexure-2, by which the services of the petitioner was terminated.
(3.) The fact in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as office assistant in Sahebganj District in terms of an advertisement and was posted and transferred to different place in the said district. The appointment of the petitioner and others was cancelled by the Director of Education, Bihar, Patna as contained in Memo No. 1398/Patna dated 7.12.1993 as being irregular and illegal since the due process of such appointment was not followed. The petitioner along with Om Prakash Mandal and Jai Prakash Singh, who were similarly situated to the petitioner, had challenged the order of termination dated 7.12.1993 in CWJC No. 4278 of 1994, in which considering the specific statements made in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the second supplementary counter affidavit, the writ application was disposed of. However, it was indicated in the said order that if the persons mentioned in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the writ application, have been allowed to draw their salary, it will be open for the petitioner to bring this fact to the notice of the Court. After the order dated 11.10.1996 was passed in CWJC No. 4278 of 1994, the services of respondent no. 6 was terminated vide order dated 27.05.2000 as contained in Memo No. 437. Against the said order of termination, the respondent no. 6 preferred a writ application being CWJC No. 1752 of 2011, which was disposed of on 10.03.2003 by quashing the order of termination. A letters patent appeal was preferred by the State being L.P.A. No.397 of 2003, which was, however, disposed of with a direction that the order of reinstatement of respondent no. 6 be passed within two weeks. Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. No. 18356 of 2005 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State, which was, however, dismissed on 12.09.2005. The writ petitioner had again moved this Court in WPS No. 4738 of 2002, in which an order was passed on 18.07.2003 giving a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps for filling up the vacant post. A contempt application followed, which was, however, dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2010.;