Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1271 (JHR)

Sushil Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-17

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2002
ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. 2. The writ has been filed for quashing the order (Annexure 14 and 15). By Annexure-14 the services of the petitioner was terminated by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation- cum-Deputy Secretary on the ground that Rehabilitation Officer had no power to make appointment and by Annexure-15 the effective order of termination was issued. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner was appointed as Amin along with others on the vacant post on 9.8.1988. He joined his service at Deoghar and from there he was transferred to Khunti. While he was posted at Khunti, some employees were retrenched but the name of petitioner did not appear in the retrenchment order, Annexure-4. Vide Annexure-5, on 26.11.1988 the petitioner made his representation for release of salary which was accordingly released to him. Thereafter, he was transferred from Khunti to Chaibasa in the year 1990. In the year 1995, vide Annexure-6 which is the newspaper advertisement, the petitioner came to know that his appointment was illegal, as advertised by respondent No. 4. Subsequently by Annexure-7, the petitioner submitted his show cause. In the year 1996, vide Annexure-9 the petitioner was transferred from Chaibasa to Chaliawan. Vide Annexure-10. On 7.10.1996 another advertisement in the newspaper was issued and the petitioner was asked to show cause by 15.10.1996 as to why the services of the petitioner be not terminated. The petitioner filed his second show cause, vide Annexure 11 on 30.10.1996 then again he was asked to submit further show cause and the matter was pending and then Annexure-14 was issued on 6.9.1997 holding that the appointment of the petitioner was not made properly and subsequently by Annexure 15 the services of the petitioner was terminated. 4. The main question is whether the appointment of the petitioner made by Rehabilitation Officer was against His powers. Annexure-1 shows that the appointment was made by him in the year 1988 and the termination has been done in the year 1997 i.e. after about ten years. 5. 4. The main question is whether the appointment of the petitioner made by Rehabilitation Officer was against His powers. Annexure-1 shows that the appointment was made by him in the year 1988 and the termination has been done in the year 1997 i.e. after about ten years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a number of decisions passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1452 of 2001, CWJC No. 770 of 2001, CWJC No. 5692 of 1998, CWJC No. 5964 of 1998 in which it has been consistently held by this Court that at the relevant time the rehabilitation Officer was competent to appoint on class-III and IV post and there being no denial of fact that the post of Amin is not a class of III post, the appointment as such is not illegal. 6. In view of the aforesaid judgments and consistent holding of this fact that the Rehabilitation Officer was competent to appoint on class III and IV post. Annexure 14 and 15 are quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with, obvious consequences which is being given to other similarly situated persons. 7. The writ is allowed.