D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this writ application as originally made, was for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners, which has remained unpaid, since 17.09.2005. By a subsequent amendment to the writ application, a further prayer was added for quashing the order, whereby the services of the petitioners was terminated as contained in Annexure -13 series to the writ application.
(2.) HEARD Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to G.P. IV, for the Respondent -State. The facts of the petitioners' case in brief are as follows: In response to an Advertisement dated -28.08.2002 (Annexure -1), the petitioners applied for the post of Teachers. They appeared at the written Test and at the Interview and they were declared selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, who had recommended their candidatures for their appointment. In terms of Circular dated 09.03.2005 (Annexure -2), the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teachers on 30.09.2005, vide letters of appointment (Annexure -3, 4 and 5). Though, they joined on their respective posts upon being given the letters of appointment and were continuously working, their salaries payable from the date of their joining on the post, was not paid to them. In response to their several representations, the Respondents served show -cause notices (Annexure -11) upon the petitioners on 14.12.2006. The petitioners submitted their replies to the show cause notices vide Annexure -12. When in spite of submission of their representations and explanations to the show -cause notices they were not paid their salaries, the petitioners filed the present writ application. During the pendency of this writ application, by the impugned order (Annexure -13 series), their services were terminated on the ground that they had failed to produce the Caste Certificate issued by the Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 authorities of the State of Jharkhand in terms of the Judgment dated -01.05.2006, rendered in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of termination, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ground taken by the Respondents for terminating the services of the petitioners purportedly on the basis of the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005, is totally misconceived and misleading, as because the judgment in the aforesaid L.P.A., rendered on 01.05.2006, has no bearing whatsoever with the case of the present petitioners as because it is a judgment passed long after the appointment of the petitioners and after acceptance of their Joining Reports. In any case, the Respondents cannot apply the judgment retrospectively to the case of the petitioners. Learned Counsel adds further that no enquiry was held by the Respondents before canceling their regular appointments and such cancellation of their appointments is violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel adds further that even if the initial appointment of the petitioners claimed to have been given under the reserved category and if it is considered that the petitioners were not entitled for appointment in the reserved category, the claim of the petitioners under the General category cannot be denied to them. In support of his contention, learned Counsel would want to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave - versus -Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar.;