An Identical Teacher Appointment Finally Held Illegal Cannot Be Sustained on Parity Grounds.

The respondent challenged the termination of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher by order dated 23 October 2006 and the dismissal of her departmental appeal on 13 May 2013.

She maintained that she had been appointed after a notice-board advertisement and interview; the State contended that the appointment was made without a sanctioned post or advertisement.

The Single Judge set aside the termination and appellate orders, relying in part on the respondent’s appointment-related claims and a 1991 resolution concerning the training requirement.

The State appealed. It relied on a Division Bench decision in Prafulla Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, concerning an appointment on identical facts, which had set aside the appointment as illegal; the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that decision.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the respondent’s termination when a Division Bench had held an appointment on identical facts to be illegal.

Whether the respondent was entitled to relief on parity with the Single Judge decision in Prafulla Kumar Chaudhary, after that decision had been reversed by the Division Bench and the reversal had attained finality.

The Court applied the Division Bench ruling in Prafulla Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, which held that the appointment involved there was illegal and that the appointment letter was non-est; the Division Bench’s decision had been upheld after the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to it.

The Court treated that final ruling as controlling because the appointment in the respondent’s case was found to be on identical facts.

The Court considered the prior case materially identical: both involved termination of an Assistant Teacher appointed in the same circumstances.

Since the Division Bench had set aside the appointment in Prafulla Kumar Chaudhary as illegal, and that ruling had attained finality, the Single Judge’s contrary decision could not stand.

The Court therefore concluded that the Single Judge was not justified in quashing the respondent’s termination.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.