- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of punishment dated 23.07.1992 pertaining to termination the services of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and for a further direction to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to allow the petitioner to be reinstated in his original post as a Clerk at Chhotkidevi Balika Girls' High School, Chirkunda and for direction to respondents to make payment of the wages to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts as averred in the writ application in a nutshell is that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide memo no.328-29 dated 19.09.1988 as per Annexure-1 to the writ application and petitioner was terminated from services vide order dated 23.07.1992 in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.1 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. The writ application has averred that along with the petitioner other 15 persons who also had been working since 1990 and their services were also terminated vide the same letter being letter no.325 dated 23.07.1992. Some of them moved before this Court in different writ applications vide C.W.J.C. No.520 of 1996 (R) by order dated 03.03.1998 to allow the writ application with a direction that the petitioner should be provided job either in the continuity of previous service or against a new post within two months as per Annexure-4 to the writ application and vide order dated 13.01.2000 passed in M.J.C. No.560 of 1998 (R), direction was made to the District Education Officer, Dhanbad to comply the order vide order dated 13.01.2000 as per Annexure-5 to the writ application. Similarly, many other persons, whose case stands on exactly similar footing that the petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.636 of 1996 (R) has been pleased to allow the petitioner to join at his original post even in M.J.C. No.42 of 2000(R) vide order dated 14.03.2001, direction was made for allowing the petitioner to join the original post with consequential benefits as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner exactly on similar footing. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1332 of 2003 vide order dated 16.07.2008 has been pleased to allow the writ application directing the respondents to join at his original post as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ application. As against the order of the learned Single Judge, LPA was filed and the same has been dismissed against which special leave was preferred and the Apex Court has also dismissed the SLP as evident from Annexure-8 to the writ application. Similarly, one Dhananjay Kumbhakar has also moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1846 of 1993 (R) challenging the order of termination dated 23.07.1992 and the order was passed on 27.03.1995 setting aside the order of dismissal and direction was made to reinstatement of the petitioner as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application since the petitioner is on similar footing to that of the other persons who have already been allowed to join the respective posts after the termination order dated 23.07.1992 which has been passed by this Hon'ble Court upheld by the Division Bench and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per-Contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the appointment norms which were mandatory/statutory were not followed and in absence of the same the appointment cannot be treated as valid and as per rule since the vacancies were not advertised. So called decision for appointment was taken by the then District Education Officer and not by any committee formed for the purpose. Reservation policy was not observed. No interview was conducted and no qualification was fixed for making appointments. The names of the candidates were not called for from the employment exchange and no penal was prepared. As such none of the petitioners has any merit in the present writ and so the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner is quite different from the cases of other petitioners who have been allowed to join services since the petitioner was terminated on 23.07.1992 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2011 just after 19 years with no sufficient explanation for delay.;