JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“1. That, this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure-9) in Misc. Case No. 05/08-09 passed by the Respondent Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj whereby he has wrongly been directed the respondent The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj to frame a charge and initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner for her illegal appointment as Assistant teacher and also directed to consider the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 as Assistant teacher in accordance with law though the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj has got no jurisdiction and power to pass such an arbitrary order which is wholly illegal, unconstitutional and perverse and be further pleased to direct the respondents not to disturb the service of the petitioner as she served the department for last 22 years on being proper verification of her entire certificates time to time.”

3. W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“1. That, this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.09.2009 vide Memo No. 1359 by which the respondent District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with immediate effect and terminated from service and also directed to issue appointment letter to Respondent No. 6, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without application of judicious mind and without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner where the petitioner served the department for last 22 years on being proper verification of her entire certificate time to time.”

Arguments of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2009 has been passed pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 573 of 2006 dated 01.05.2008 read with order in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 438 of 2008 dated 21.04.2009.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that in this proceeding, the order dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure- 9) passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2008-09 is under challenge. He has raised a ground that at one stage, the Deputy Commissioner found that the appointment of the petitioner is correct and on the same set of evidence, the Deputy Commissioner raised suspicion on the certificate and appointment of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the decision in favour of the petitioner was taken on 24.07.2008 itself as contained in Annexure- 7, but the respondent Deputy Commissioner, vide another order dated 16.07.2009, illegally directed the District Superintendent of Education to frame charge against the petitioner by initiating a departmental proceeding and consequently, the impugned order dated 16.07.2009 is illegal and is fit to be set-aside.

Arguments of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 29.09.2009 has been passed pursuant to the order impugned in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009.

8. He also submits that there is an allegation of fraud and taking appointment by impersonation so far as the petitioner is concerned and it has been alleged that the petitioner has taken appointment in place of Nina Kumari Sah (present respondent no. 6).

9. He submits that pursuant to order passed in the writ proceedings being W.P.(S) No. 573 of 2006 disposed of on 01.05.2008 Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008-09 was instituted by the Deputy Commissioner and notices were issued to the petitioner as well as private respondent no. 6 and the order-sheet indicates that the private respondent no. 6 never ap