Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Paswan Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1427 of 2022
----
Vijay Kumar Paswan son of Sri Juthan Paswan, resident of South
Colony, PO PS, District Sahebganj.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School
Education & Literacy Department, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy
Department, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj.
5. The District Education Officer, Sahebganj.
6. The Deputy Director of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Mishra, AC to Sr. SC II
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to G.A., Bihar
----
5/ 16.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to quash Memo
No.414/Dumka dated 28.07.2021 (Annexure 9) issued by the respondent
No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for reinstating him in service has
been rejected. He also prays for reinstatement in terms of order dated
26.04.2012 passed in L.P.A. No.255 of 2008 in the case of Uma Shankar
Singh versus The State of Jharkhand & Others, as the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the 1988. His services were
terminated in 1993 on the ground that the appointing authority had no authority
to appoint the petitioner and there was irregularity in the said appointment.
Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No.4325 of 1994. The said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging
the said order passed in the writ petition, petitioner preferred a letters patent
appeal being L.P.A. No.212 of 1995. The Division Bench of the Patna High
Court, vide a detailed order dated 20th December, 1996 also dismissed the
said L.P.A. No.212 of 1995. The issue of dismissal of the petitioner, thus,
attained finality. Thereafter the petitioner claimed to have rejoined the service
in the year 1998, when the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal
Pargana, Dumka called him with relevant documents for purposes of his
reappointment, but, there was no re-appointment letter in support of the claim
of the petitioner to have rejoined in the year 1998, on the basis of which he
rejoined the service. The said termination order was again challenged by the
petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3684 of 2001, which was remitted back to the Deputy
Director of Education, Dumka to determine as to whether the petitioner had to
function at Deoghar or at Sahebganj. When the matter was enquired into by
the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka, it transpired that the
petitioner did not have any formal appointment order in his name, but had
managed his joining in the year 1998 even though the termination of his
appointment earlier made in 1993 was upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A.
No.212 of 1995. The petitioner had again preferred a writ petition being
W.P.(S) No.7025 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge
on the ground that cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner had
attained finality and the issue is barred by resjudicata. Petitioner challenged
the said order in L.P.A. No.413 of 2009. The entire claim of the petitioner was
considered by the Division Bench and it was held that the petitioner had no
legal right to remain in service even though he had rejoined and continued for
some time under the respondents. The Division Bench held that the Single
Judge was right in refusing to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction. Further, it
was a fact that the matter was set at rest by the Division Bench in L.P.A
No.212 of 1995 and the same cannot be reopened.
4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner only taking a plea
that similarly situated persons, namely, Sadanand Thakur has been employed
even though his case also attained finality in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 18356 of 2005, which arose out of order passed in L.P.A. No.397 of 2003.
The Special Leave Petition, which was filed by the State of Jharkhand was
dismissed. It is his case that Sadanand Thakur was reemployed and even one
another person, namely, Uma Shankar Singh was also reemployed, thus, the
petitioner should be treated similarly.
5. After going through the records and the facts, which have been
mentioned above, the issue that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal
was set at rest by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.212 of 1995. Further, again
this issue was sought to be re-opened by the petitioner and the same was
again set at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.413 of 2009.
Thus, the issue, so far as it relates to the appointment of petitioner has been
set at rest by this Court. Petitioner cannot derive any benefit from an order
passed in favour of Sadanand Thakur and Uma Shankar Singh. The petitioner
had challenged the orders passed in earlier two Letters Patent Appeals, but
those were decided against him and the same have attained finality. Thus, it
can be presumed that the petitioner has accepted the orders, which were
passed against him. Now, after a long time, petitioner is trying to reopen the
issue taking shelter of case of Sadanand Thakur and Uma Shankar Singh.
When the claim of the petitioner has already been set at rest in two Letters
Patent Appeals, I am not inclined to reopen the issue, which has been set at
rest in two Letter Patent Appeals for any reason whatsoever.
6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/S.K/Cp-02
