R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.12.1996 (Annexure -II), passed by the respondent No. 2 to the extent that the dismissal of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the petitioner on 20.02.1991, was disapproved and petitioner was directed to reinstate them.
(2.) MR . Ughal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was found void ab initio. The then Secretary of School confirmed that no meeting of the Managing Committee was held regarding the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 12.12.1985 and 26.07.1987. The then Principal of the School, being sister of respondent No. 4, managed to get approval of such appointments by the department. When it came to the notice of the Management that the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was illegal, they were asked to produce papers in support of their appointment by letter dated 18.01.1991 (Annexure -8 and 8/1), but they did not respond to the same. Accordingly, their appointments were declared void ab initio and they were removed from service. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 created law and order problem and police help had to be taken. Then respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed Title Suit No. 26 of 1993 in the court of Sub -Judge, Gumla for the following reliefs: (a) That by adjudication it be declared illegal appointed as Head Mistress of the School from the date of the appointment of the defendant No. 5 with a direction to appoint Plaintiff No. 1 as Head Mistress of the School. (a1) That the permanent injunction may be passed against the defendants. (b) That it be adjudicated and declared that the plaintiffs No. 2 be appointed as a Teacher in the School in intermediate trained scale. (c) That finally it be declared that the letter of dismissal from service through letter dated 20.02.1991 is without jurisdiction, bad and illegal. (d) Any other relief or reliefs that the plaintiffs be found entitled may be decreed. A petition for injunction was also filed along with the plaint on 21.07.1993. Petitioner appeared in the suit. As injunction was not granted, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 left taking interest in the suit and, ultimately, it was dismissed on 20.01.1995 for non -prosecution. Then the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to approve the order of removal of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He further submitted that the impugned order is based on errors of record. For example, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not work in the school in the years 1982 and 1983. The Attendance Register of other school (Annexure -13) will show that they were working in another school between November, 1983 to January, 1986. He further submitted that even in the letter dated 22.06.1995 (Annexure -12), the then Principal of the Petitioner's School (who happened to be the Sister of respondent No. 4) said that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in December, 1987 and July, 1987 independently (privately). Mr. Ughal lastly submitted that in any event no departmental proceeding was necessary, as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not produce anything to show that their appointments were made in legal manner.
(3.) MRS . C. Prabha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that they raised their just and proper demand but the Management became biased and terminated them from service. She further submitted that a notice of only 48 hours was given to produce papers, which was improper.;