JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned GP-27 for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.08.2020 contained in Memo No. 339 whereby she has been dismissed from service under Rule 14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 as also against the order passed in appeal, upholding the order of dismissal.

3. The only charge against the petitioner is that her appointment as Matric Trained Teacher in a school way-back in the year 1983 was sans the rules, as there was no roster clearance and there was no advertisement for filling up such post. On this solitary charge, the petitioner was put to a departmental proceeding.

4. Be it noted that a CBI inquiry had been held in the matter of illegal appointment of the petitioner, pursuant to a PIL petition before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court and that also without any demur from the counsel for the State that in the inquiry conducted by the CBI, it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was beyond the rules.

6. The appointing authority viz. the District Inspectress of the Schools may have had the competence to appoint teachers under the Bihar Education Service Code but without any advertisement for filling up any vacant posts, such appointments could not have been made.

7. Mr. Kumar has further informed this Court that except the filing of such charge report that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules, nothing happened thereafter. Neither the petitioner nor the appointing authority were put to any criminal charge of conspiracy in obtaining an appointment through back-door. The petitioner continued to remain in service for about 30 years and during the above period that she served as a teacher, she was promoted also.

8. The petitioner is shortly to superannuate.

9. The major ground of challenge to the order of dismissal is that the documents which were demanded by her for an effective representation were not supplied to her. The only document which perhaps would have helped her frame the answer to the poser viz. the charge report of the CBI, was not made available to her. With about three decades of having served in the department and having got promotion in the service also, the petitioner was absolutely sanguine that her appointment has been vindicated as no sequel action was taken after the submission of the charge report.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that assuming but not admitting the fact that there was no roster clearance for such appointment, she could not have been saddled with any charge as the responsibility for the same was in the domain of the appointing authority.

11. He has further submitted that the appointment was made by a competent person and only after the post was advertised. It appears from the charge memo that the advertisement did not have regular pattern. The post appears to have been advertised by inscribing it on the black-board put in front of the office of the District Inspectress of School.

12. Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned Advocate for the State has submitted that prima facie such advertisement is no advertisement in the eyes of law. An advertisement is meant to disclose information to aspirants in general about the vacancy and the prospective procedure which would be adopted for filling up such vacancy. That the vacancy was advertised only by inscribing it on a blackboard kept in front of the office of the appointing authority is no invitation in the eyes of law to desirous people to apply for the post.

13. Apart from this, it has been contended on behalf of the State that no doubt the petitioner has not been charged with any conspiracy for obtaining appointment in an unauthorized manner but the fact remains that her appointment was not in accordance with the rules and therefore the same cannot be saved/protected by taking resort to the argument that the provisions und