Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 28.01.2009 whereby respondent no. 3- Director, Secondary Education declared the appointment of the petitioner illegal and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to pay the salary after approving the services of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on the post of teacher in Punjab Kanya Uchcha Vidyalaya, Refugee Colony, Jamshedpur, which is a government aided minority school, his case was considered by the Managing Committee of the school and appointment letter dated 12.07.1982, on temporary basis, was issued in favour of petitioner under the signature of Secretary of the said school. It is averred that by passage of time, vide letter dated 04.05.1989, the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed and principal of the said school vide letter dated 02.06.1989 wrote letter to D.S.E., Singhbhum at Chaibasa for confirmation of services of the petitioner, who in turn forwarded the matter to Director, Human Resources Department for needful vide its letter dated 31.07.1989. Pursuant thereto, the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar wrote letter dated 31.12.1990 to the Secretary, School Service Board to give approval to the appointment of the petitioner, which has already been done by Managing Committee of the said school, but, the respondents-authorities sat over the matter. However, when salary of the petitioner was not paid, the Secretary of the said school wrote letter dated 20.12.2002 to the D.E.O, Singhbhum, to release the salary, but it did not evoke any response. Under the circumstances, the petitioner left with no option, approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5483 of 2002, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 03.07.2008 remitting the matter to respondent-authority for reconsideration and quashed order dated 11.02.2008 passed by Director, Secondary Education which was passed during pendency of that writ application, whereby approval of services of the petitioner was refused on the ground that he was not appointed after following due procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities, who passed impugned order dated 28.01.2009 whereby respondent no. 3-Director-Secondary Education declared the appointment of the petitioner to be illegal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managing Committee, which is competent to appoint teachers in case of minority schools, after due process has appointed the petitioner in the year 1982 on temporary basis and in the meantime advertisement was published for the post of permanent teachers in the year 1989 and after complying all formalities, the case of the petitioner was considered and his services was confirmed w.e.f 25.02.1989 by the Managing Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that in case of Government aided minority school, Managing Committee is the competent authority to appoint teachers against vacant post, and it is nowhere the case of the respondents that at any point of time, any certificate produced by the petitioner was fake or he did not possess requisite qualification but even then his services was not approved and even salary was not paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is rendering his services since from the very date of initial appointment till date, which fact is reflected from the attendance register, counter signed by the principal of the said school. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner has been validly appointed, he is entitled to receive the salary and such a right to receive salary tantamounts to right hold property, falling within Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that observation of the Court that " . In my opinion at best it can be said to be a case of irregularity and not illegality and therefore, petitioner's case for approval of his appointment requires consideration" made in order dated 03.07.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5483 of 2002 has not been taken in right prospective.;