Shikha Rani, W/o Rajesh Kumar Sinha vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

reliefs:

"1. That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction and writ in this nature of certiorari quashing the order vide Memo No. dt. 18.11.016 by which the respondent no. -5 was pleased the terminate the petitioner from service on the ground that her appointment is irregular and invalid and further direct this respondents not to disturb the petitioner from functioning in school in question (Bankipur Girls High School.)

The petitioner claims to have been appointed in the

year 1988. However, on the basis of an order passed in a Public

Interest Litigation being C.W.J.C. No. 10002 of 2016 dated

21.10.2016, on the basis of a C.B.I. enquiry relating to appointment

made of teachers from 1980 to 1988, action has been taken against

the petitioner by terminating her service. The same is impugned in

the present writ application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she

was appointed pursuant to an advertisement in the year 1988 and

thereafter was transferred to various places and further that the C.B.I.

enquiry was done without her participation and the reply submitted

by her pursuant to the first and second show cause has not been

properly considered. Learned counsel has also produced copy of

order dated 17.01.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17904 of 2016

( Shanti Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors .) and analogous

cases as well as order dated 18.01.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

14784 of 2016 ( Smt. Shashikala vs. The State of Bihar & Ors .)

and analogous cases, in which persons whose services have been

terminated on the basis of the C.B.I. enquiry having moved this

Court, the co-ordinate Bench has interfered with the same and given

liberty to the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned to

proceed afresh in accordance with law and pass order after affording

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner not only to file their show

cause but also to justify their cases by personal hearing. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the

advertisement, interview was held and the Establishment Committee

also approved of the appointment.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the

petitioner has not replied to the specific finding of the C.B.I. as

contained in the second show cause dated 18.10.2016, which has

been quoted in the said show cause and further that perusal of the

order of the Selection Committee indicates that she was appointed

without any interview and her appointment was totally ad hoc.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

does not find any merit in the present writ application. The findings

of the C.B.I., as reflected in the second show cause dated 18.10.2016

reads as under:

"Although she applied for the post advertised in march 88 but her appointment has been made directly. There is no formation of any selection committee for her selection by any test or interview. Her appointment is irregular and in violation of recruitment rule of LSS teacher, she is over age. No roster clearance was obtained and reservation rules were not followed"

The petitioner has annexed a typed copy of the

proceeding of the Establishment Committee dated 05.12.1988 which

indicates that the petitioner was directly appointed on ad hoc basis by

the Inspectress of the Schools and the same has been

approved/ratified by the Committee. The aforesaid facts thus, clearly

reveal that the petitioner was directly appointed by the School

Inspectress on ad hoc basis and there is absolutely no indication of

any selection process like test or interview being held and merit list

prepared. In that background, the very initial appointment of the

petitioner not being in accordance with law will clearly fall in the

category of being ''illegal'' and not ''irregular'' and the same cannot be

condoned.

Matters relating to public employment have to be

viewed in the background of the actual exercise undergone while

making such recruitment so that it is in conformity with the

constitutional scheme and most importantly satisfying the

requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, there being nothing to show that

any Selection Committee was formed which had interviewed the

petitioner or any test conducted where others also took part and a

merit list was prepared, and rather there being evidence to the

contrary that the School Inspectress has directly appointed the

petitioner on ad hoc basis, the Court can only presume that no such

exercise had been undertaken. In that view of the matter, the Court is

not in a position to compare the facts of the petitioners in the cases on

which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied i.e., Shanti

Kumari and analogous cases (supra) and Smt. Shashikala and

analogous cases (supra).

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands

dismissed.