Uma Shankar Choubey vs The State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, as contained in annexure 1 dated 7.5.1993, whereby and whereunder he has been removed from services.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly appointed by the District Education Officer, who was the competent authority to appoint the petitioner as a Clerk in the year 1989. The petitioner thereafter continued in services and all of a sudden, the petitioner was terminated alongwith others in most mechanical way.

The order impugned appears to be a cyclostyled one, but the name of the petitioner has been included by hand.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same order terminating the services of Birendra Kumar Singh and Jagdish Singh and others have been quashed by this Court vide orders, as contained in annexures 9 and 11, respectively, which orders have been upheld in Letters Patent Appeals, and, therefore, similar treatment be meted out in the case of the petitioner.

From perusal of annexure 1, the order of removal, it appears that several persons alongwith the petitioner were considered and they were removed in the same manner.

The case of the petitioner, in that view of the matter, is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court, as contained in annexures 9 and 11, respectively. This application, in that view of the matter, is allowed in terms of the orders passed by this Court, as referred to above, the order impugned, so far the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.