D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred mainly for getting posting in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, as an Instructor, Mining & Geology (Vocational Education), because he was appointed in the year, 1993 and has worked for few 'lays in the school and, thereafter he has joined the work with the concerned Minister, upon oral request of the concerned Minister.
(2.) IT is submitted vehemently by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 28th June, 1993 as an Instructor. Thereafter, he was allotted a school vide order dated 6th July, 1993 and the petitioner joined die said school, namely, Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, on 21st July, 1993 and he worked there for few clays and, thereafter, by oral request of a particular Minister, he joined himself with the said Minister and it is alleged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has worked there for several months and the after, when he applied for rejoining the said High School, lastly on 8th June, 1995, no reply was given by the said school and, thereafter, a legal notice was given by the petitioner on 21st November, 2002 to the respondents and, thereafter, a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2003 was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was dismissed on 1st September, 2004 and, thereafter, the present writ petition has been preferred, mainly on the ground that the respondents ought to have allowed the present petitioner to join or assume the duties as Instructor at Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner has voluntarily left the services from Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has taken charge of the post of Instructor at Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj on 21st July, 1993 and he immediately absented himself from 22nd July, 1993 to 19th August, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner again joined the services on 20th August, 1993 at Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, and he worked there up to 27th August, 1993. Thus, the petitioner has actually worked for eight days in the month of August, 1993. Again, the petitioner left the services from 28th August, 1993 and remained absent up to 7th June, 1995. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that on 8th June, 1995 the petitioner made an attempt for giving joining report and in the month of November, 2002, the petitioner gave a legal notice to the respondents. Even a writ petition, preferred by the petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna was also dismissed on 1st September, 2004 and, thereafter, in the year, 2008 the present writ petition has been preferred. Thus, after appointment of the present petitioner on 28th June, 1998 or after joining the post on 21st July, 1993, the petitioner has actually worked only for eight days as Instructor in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, More is the period of absenteeism than presence. Tie petitioner has voluntarily, thereafter, left the services for no justifiable reasons. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the. petitioner's services were taken by the State as an Assistant of the concerned Minister. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that even the petitioner is not able to point out any appointment letter with the Minister concerned. If the State Government is taking the services of an incumbent, it cannot be an oral one and, therefore, the contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was engaged with the concerned Minister is not acceptable by the respondents and the. same is an after thought. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that lastly the petitioner served as an Instructor in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, for the period, running from 20th August, 1993 to 27th August, 1993 and thereafter, he has not served the school. no salary has been paid by the State Government for the period during which the petitioner has not worked. The petitioner must have been gainfully employed somewhere and this petition has been filed after long unexplained delay of more than one decade and, therefore, this writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears from the facts of the case that the present I petitioner was appointed as an Instructor on 28th June, 1993. Thereafter, he was directed to resume the duties on 6th July, 1993 at Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, and the petitioner actually joined the services on 21st July. 1993; (ii) Looking to the facts of the present case, it also appears that from 22nd July, 1993 the petitioner remained absent up to 19th August, 1993; (iii) Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the present petitioner had joined the services again on 20th August, 1993 and he worked up to 27th August, 1993 and, thus, the petitioner has actually worked for eight days as an Instructor in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj. Thereafter, the petitioner left the services of Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, and again he remained absent from 28th August, 1993 to 7th June, 1995; (iv) It appears that thereafter, the petitioner had given joining report on 8th June, 1995 and, thereafter, he gave a legal notice on 21st November, 2002. Thus, it appears that the present petitioner has worked only for eight days in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, as an Instructor. More is the period of absenteeism than the presence. With this tendency, the petitioner fled a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7328 of 2003, although the State of Jharkhand having been bifurcated in November, 2000 itself, the petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition be ore this Court and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on 1st September, 2004 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Again the petitioner remained dormant for five long years and the present writ petition has been preferred in the year, 2008. (v) The petitioner, thus, has worked only for eight days in Rajasthan High School, Sihebganj, as an Instructor; firstly and lastly for the period, running from 20th August, 1993 to 27th August, 1993 and on that basis the petitioner is claiming his right to be appointed again as an Instruction in the same very school, on the ground that for some intervening period, on an oral direction, he was attached with one Minister. (vi) Looking to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been alleged by the respondents that the petitioner has left the services of Rajasthan high School, Sahebganj, it appears that the services were abandoned by the petitioner from 1993 onwards. There is nothing on the record to show that the services of the present petitioner were hired by the State Government for the Minister concerned. There is no Annexure, supporting this fact in favour of the present petitioner. Bare assertion cannot be equated with evidence. The petitioner has, therefore, no right to continue in service as an Instructor in Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj. From 1993 the petitioner has never served at all the said High School and, therefore, he has abandoned the services of Rajasthan High School, Sahebganj, on his own and voluntarily. There is no legal obligation, vested in the respondents to give employment to the present petitioner and there is no right vested in the petitioner to get such an employment, as a matter of right. ;