D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE appellant who is one of the several petitioners in the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2005, has failed the instant appeal against the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) CHALLENGE in the writ petition was made against the order contained in Memo No. 763 dated 30.6.2005 passed by District Education Establishment Committee issued under the seal and signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, whereby petitioner/appellant and his co -petitioners were removed from service. Facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner and a few other persons had obtained appointment as Assistant Teachers on temporary basis in the year 1981 -82. Two years later i.e. in the year 1984 their service were terminated on the ground that their appointments were illegal. Petitioner and all similarly situated persons filed writ applications before the Patna High Court and moved up to the Supreme Court. The writ application filed by the petitioner and a group of other persons similarly situated was registered a CWJC No. 405 of 1985 in which at the stage of admission itself, the Patna High Court by its order dated 21.2.1985, had stayed the operation of the order of termination. While the aforesaid writ application was pending in the Patna High Court, similar writ applications which were filed by several other teachers against the same order of termination, were disposed of, whereafter the aggrieved persons moved the Supreme Court and pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the authorities concerned reconsidered the cases of all the applicants and a fresh panel was prepared in the year 1994 in accordance with the rule. The final panel was prepared after calling for objections through notice in the daily newspaper and after considering the objections received, the final panel was published on 25.7.1994. The names of the petitioner and his co -petitioners in the writ application were not included in the panel. Yet, they continued in service and even received their monthly salary though as temporary appointees. Anomaly when detected later, they were served with show -cause notices and finally, they were served with the order of termination of their services vide memo No. 763 dated 30.6.2005 passed by the District Education Establishment Committee, issued under the seal and signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur. Initially, the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ application before the learned single Judge was for confirmation of their temporary appointment. Later, a further prayer was added by amendment in the writ petition, for quashing the order of their termination dated 30.6.2005.
(3.) THE main grievance of the petitioner in the writ application was; 1. that the impugned order of termination so passed without issuing any show -cause notice was illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 2. that the impugned order of termination was illegal on account of the fact that it was passed in violation and in contempt of the order of stay granted by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 405 of 1985 dated 21.2.1985 and also when the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2005 was subjudice. 3. that the reason which was stated for termination of services of the petitioners, namely that name of the petitioner and similarly situated other applicants did not find place either in the selection list or in the waiting list, nor was there any order in their favour, is factually incorrect as because, even after application of the final pane, the petitioner and similarly situated other candidates continued to remain in service and draw their monthly salary regularly. 4. that the application of rule relating to age bar against the petitioner was illegal since the petitioner being a handicapped person, was entitled to relaxation of age till the age of 45 years as per the original advertisement issued for the appointment of teachers.;