PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2), issued under the signature of respondent No. 2-Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, whereby the claim of petitioner for re-appointment/re-instatement on the post of Peon has been rejected without considering the judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001(Annexure-10 to the writ petition), which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 14.07.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 397 of 2003 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition).
(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj (Respondent No. 3) in the year 1987 on the post of Peon in the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Sahebganj and thereafter he was transferred in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj in the year 1988 and since then he was working. But after about six years, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj with effect from 27.07.1993 and being aggrieved by the termination order, he had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 894 of 1994, which was withdrawn on 18.05.1995 by the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate authority. However, pursuant to the direction of the Director, the respondent No. 2 after proper verification re-appointed the petitioner on the post of Peon in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj vide Memo dated 03.08.1998 and the petitioner again joined on 05.08.1998 in the office of respondent No. 4 and since then he was working on the said post. After lapse of about two years of re-appointment of petitioner, all of a sudden, he was directed to submit his explanation by 10.05.2000 as to why his services should not be terminated vide Memo dated 25.04.2000. Pursuant to the direction of respondent No. 2, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.05.2000. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has issued order terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect vide Memo dated 14.09.2000. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.10.2000 praying therein to re-consider the validity of his re-appointment made by the competent authority after proper verification. However, the respondent No. 2 taking into consideration the entire affairs regarding appointment and re-appointment of petitioner prepared a file and sent the same to learned Government Advocate for legal opinion and the learned Government Advocate returned the file with legal opinion in favour of petitioner, but the respondent No. 2 sat tight over the matter since long. Ultimately, the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 2593 of 2003 praying, inter alia, for quashing the impugned termination order and this Court vide order dated 9.01.2009 directed the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same by speaking order. The petitioner pursuant to the direction of respondent No. 2 appeared before him on 11.02.2009 and produced all relevant documents and the order passed in similarly situated persons, namely, Sada Nand Thakur i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001. The order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001 had been challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 397 of 2003,wherein the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to modify the order to the extent that the writ petitioner in the said case will not be entitled to salary since he has not worked for the period in question. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar and identical to that of Sada Nand Thakur, who was also appointed without following due procedure of law and again has been re-instated/re-appointed. The petitioner's appointment was made on the direction of Director, Secondary Education and found correct by the competent authority, but the respondent No. 2 has issued order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2) rejecting the claim of petitioner for reinstatement/ re-appointment.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2), the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.;