Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1185 (JHR)

Ram Babu Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-11-26

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. The Secretary-cum-Inspector General of (Registration), Government of Bihar, Patna issued an order on 30th June, 2001 to terminate the services of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order the Inspector General of (Registration), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi terminated the services of petitioner vide impugned order dated 29th December, 2001. 2. The stand taken by respondents is that the petitioner was appointed in violation of order dated 7th October, 1993 passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3868/1993, Ashok Kumar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and Ors. and in view of notice issued by the Patna High Court in a contempt proceeding. 3. According to petitioner he was appointed after due selection and his appointment was not made in violation of the order passed by Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3668/1993. 4. For determination of the issue whether the petitioner was appointed in violation of order passed by the Patna High Court or not it is better to quote the order dated 7th October, 1993 passed in CWJC No. 3868/1993 :-- "In the High Court of Judicature at Patna CWJC No. 3868 of 1993 Ashok Kr. Singh and others v. State of Bihar and Ors. 7.10.93 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Prayer is for direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against class-IV posts. The petitioners claim that from 31st August, 1991 they have been working on daily wages. Their engagement was in exigency of the work of State. Since no regular appointment was possible at that time. In view of the statement made above admittedly due process of selection was not followed for any letter of appointment was issued. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, taking a stand that Class-IV posts in the department are vacant and, therefore, steps are being taken to fill up such posts in accordance with law. It is admitted in the interest of work as also no appointment within a short time or regular basis was possible, the petitioner were engaged to work on daily wages. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, this is admitted position that some of the Class-IV posts are vacant in the department and steps are being taken to fill up vacancy on regular basis. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, this is admitted position that some of the Class-IV posts are vacant in the department and steps are being taken to fill up vacancy on regular basis. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Registration Department (respondent No. 3) and Secretary to Inspector General, Department of Registration (respondent No. 4) to expedite the matter and fill up the vacancies on regular basis in accordance with law. However, so long the vacancies are not filled up on regular basis and it is considered that in the interest of work, engagement of daily wages employees is essential, in that case, preference shall be given to the petitioners to work on daily wages. But this will not make them entitled for consideration of regularization. The petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for the posts which are now going to be advertised and their case shall also be considered in accordance with law along with the other candidates. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this application is disposed of. S/d (N. Pandey) and (S.K. Singh) 5. From the order aforesaid it will be evident that the Patna High Court never prohibited the State to make any appointment nor issued any guideline for appointment which can be stated to have been violated at the time of appointment of petitioner. 6. So far as contempt proceeding is concerned, the respondents though referred the case bearing MJC No. 3014/1998 preferred before the Patna High Court but there is nothing on the record to suggest that the Patna High Court issued any direction prohibiting any appointment or passed any order against the petitioner. 7. So far as legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that his name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Patna and after interview and selection he has been appointed. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents though taken plea that the appointment of petitioner was made without any advertisement but no such specific ground has been taken in the impugned order dated 30th June, 2001 or the order dated 29th December, 2001. 8. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents though taken plea that the appointment of petitioner was made without any advertisement but no such specific ground has been taken in the impugned order dated 30th June, 2001 or the order dated 29th December, 2001. 8. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guideline issued from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State of Bihar vide circular No. 3/R 103/73 Ka-16441 dated 3rd December, 1980 (published by Malhotra Books in the companion of circulars relating to appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer and posting). At paragraph 1 to 5 of the circular procedure laid down for appointment of Unit Forces/Police Constables, B.M.P. constables and other forces. So far as appointment against other Class-IV posts in mufassil offices are concerned provisions made at paragraph 6 onwards of the said circular. It has been stipulated to call for names from the District Employment Exchange so that the appointment against Class-IV District Level Post can be made out of a common panel from local persons which will remain in force for one year. It is also stipulated that for one or other reason if no name is forwarded by the Local Employment Exchanges the Collector may accept application on the basis of Registration number. 9. It appears that the petitioner and two others were noticed vide memo No. 1032 dated 7th June, 2001 and were asked why their appointment be not cancelled having passed in violation of Patna High Courts order in CWJC No. 3868/1993 and MJC No. 3014/1998. It was also mentioned that no advertisement was issued before their appointments. The petitioner in his show-cause reply dated 19th June, 2001 (vide Annexure-7) brought to the notice of the authority that the names of candidates were called for Employment Exchange, Patna by Departments letter No. 246 dated 5th February, 1996. The Employment Exchange Patna, thereafter, forwarded the names of candidates including his name for appointment against Class-IV post. Thereafter, the Secretary-cum-Inspector General of (Registration) vide memo No. 1160 dated 25th May, 1996 asked the petitioner to appear in interview held on 10th June, 1996 to produce the caste certificate/certificate relating to age/experience etc. After such interview the petitioner having selected, was appointed by order No. 767 dated 9th April, 1997 issued by the Inspector General of (Registration), Bihar. The relevant copies of aforesaid letters were also enclosed with the show-cause reply. 10. After such interview the petitioner having selected, was appointed by order No. 767 dated 9th April, 1997 issued by the Inspector General of (Registration), Bihar. The relevant copies of aforesaid letters were also enclosed with the show-cause reply. 10. The respondents while did not choose to deal the aforesaid fact as replied by petitioner have not controverted the fact in their counter-affidavit. 11. From the aforesaid facts it will be evident that the petitioner was appointed after following procedure for appointment against the Class-IV post and no order of Court was violated. In this background, wrong ground having shown to terminate the services of petitioner, the orders passed by the Inspector General of (Registration), Bihar dated 30th June, 2001 and the order dated 29th December, 2001 issued by the Inspector General of (Registration) Government of Jharkhand both are set aside. 12. The petitioner stands reinstated with all consequential benefits. 13. The writ petition is allowed but without any cost.