Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 09.12.1998 whereby the name of petitioner from serial no. 1034 have been ordered to be removed from the published provisional seniority list and further for quashing order dated 13.03.1989 whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner be relieved from the work of supervisor along with others and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services from the date of termination with all consequential benefits and further for direction upon the respondents to regularise/absorb the services of the petitioner as per order passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 along with other analogous cases.
(2.) The facts, as delineated, in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 02.01.1987 as Supervisor in Adult Education Programme, purely on temporary basis, for a period of three months, which was subsequently extended for further period of three months vide memo dated 01.05.1987. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 08.06.1987. But the services of the petitioner was again restored and accordingly, she joined on 02.04.1988. But, again his services was terminated vide order dated 13.03.1989 in view of order passed in C.W.J.C No. 3222 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before respondent no. 7, who after proper legal advice, restored the services of the petitioner in the Project on 15.06.1990. But, in a general order, the post of Supervisors was abolished, hence, the petitioner was terminated along with others. Against the retrenchment of the said Education Supervisors, the petitioners forming an association, approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.05.1996 with certain observations. In compliance thereof, the respondents took steps in different stages to consider the cases of retrenched supervisors to absorb them even in some other wings of the Government and accordingly a seniority list of those retrenched supervisors, whose services were terminated in June, 1992, were prepared, which was notified vide memo dated 17.08.1994, in which name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 1059. Thereafter, all the retrenched supervisors were called for interview along with all relevant papers, basing on which, again a seniority list was published vide memo dated 14.12.1997, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 1034. However, for proper implementation and his absorption, as juniors to the petitioner were absorbed and petitioner was debarred from his legal rights, the petitioner filed M.J.C No. 1084 of 1998. However, subsequently it is averred that for the first time, the respondent no. 7 issued an order stating that on examination and scrutiny of documents, it was found that the petitioner had no claim to be appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed C.W.J.C No. 5898 of 1999, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2005 with an observation that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered as the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 and analogous cases, however, in view of the fact, brought on record, in supplementary counter affidavit that at the relevant time petitioners were posted in Jamtara in Dumka and Deoghar districts respectively, which do not form part of State of Bihar, hence no positive direction can be issued.
(3.) In backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.;