Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ application, has sought for quashing the order dated 03.05.2006, as contained in Annexure-9 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been held to be irregular, and direction has been issued to respondent no.6 to recover the salary received by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 27.05.2006 passed by the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.2) holding the appointment of the petitioner to be irregular on the ground of over age at the time of appointment, and for recovery of the salary received by the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for quashing the letter dated 12.05.2011 issued by the respondent no.7 (Annexure-11).
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts, as revealed in the writ application is that the petitioner in pursuance to advertisement issued by the respondent no.2, inviting applications for the post of Matric Trained Teachers applied for the said post and appeared in the written as well as interview of the examination conducted by the respondent no.7. The selection committee was constituted comprising of representative of the Education department besides the Secretary of the Managing committee, Principal of the School and other members of the Managing Committee. On the recommendation of the selection committee, the petitioner was appointed for the said post. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the said post on 02.11.1998. The case of the petitioner was recommended for approval and on the basis of the recommendation, the District Education Officer, Gumla vide memo dated 08.02.1999 approved the appointment of the petitioner, subject to verification of the genuine certificate. But, to the utter misfortune, the respondent authority did not fix the pay scale of the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent no.7, School is a minority school and Section 18 of the Bihar, Non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Managing and Control) Act, is applicable to the said institution. Since the pay of the petitioner was not fixed, he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4979 of 2005 and the said writ petition was disposed of with direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner with speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner filed representation and on consideration of the representation, the arrears salary of the petitioner was disbursed, as evident from letter dated 17.03.2006, vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. But to the utter surprise, vide memo dated 03.05.2006, the respondent no.3 informed the respondent no.6 regarding cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of over age and for imparting necessary instructions to respondent no.7 to recover the salary received by the petitioner, which is impugned in this writ application. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2006, vide Annexure-10 and during pendency of the writ application, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide letter dated 12.05.2011 issued by the School Management, vide Annexure-11, which is also impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders vide Annexures-9, 10 and 11, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order passed by the respondent vide Annexure-9, 10 and 11 have been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has further submitted that there being no age bar for appointment in minority institutions, these decisions taken by the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular, is not justifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner having possessed all the requisite qualification was appointed by properly constituted selection committee and his services was duly approved by the competent authority and after lapse of more than 6 years, the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner with undue haste, have impinched the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of over age at the time of appointment, which is without any jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Ors. vs. State of W.B. and Ors., 2004 6 SCC 224) more particularly paragraph 7 and has also referred to the decision of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.7741 of 2006 (Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.).;