Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 16 (JHR)

Ajit Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-07

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2000 as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application, whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer. Zila Parishad,Koderma. 3. The petitioners case is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.8.1993 issued by the respondent No. 3 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) the petitioner submitted his application and he was appointed as Assistant Engineer. Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh by the order of the Director, Panchayat Raj, vide letter No. 2768 dated 4.6.1993. It is contended that the respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 28.5.1999 requested the Director, Panchayat Raj for confirmation of the services of the petitioner. The Director, vide letter dated 24.6.1999 directed the respondent No. 3 that if the approval of the Government was not obtained at the time of appointment then instead of regularisation/coniirmation of the services of the petitioner, post approval of the appointment is to be obtained from the Government after the approval of the Establishment Committee. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 sent the proposal of the Establishment Committee to the Director, Panchayat Raj for the approval of the appointment. It appears that the Director found that the procedure for appointment to the post in question was not followed and. therefore, he directed the respondent No. 3 to remove the petitioner from services. The petitioner was, thereafter, called upon to file show cause and the impugned order of cancellation of appointment was passed. 4. The respondents case in counter affidavit is that the respondent No. 3, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer had illegally appointed the petitioner, vide letter dated 26.8.1993 on ad hoc basis in utter disregard and violation of the rules and procedure as laid down by the Government. It is stated that neither roster policy regarding reservation of post was followed nor the vacancies were advertised nor any test, interview was conducted. There was no papers regarding educational qualification, age, caste etc. of the petitioner are available on record of Zila Parishad. The respondents further case is that as per Government Resolution No. 2012 dated 16.3.1991, no appointment can be made without prior approval of the Government. The Divisional Commissioner. There was no papers regarding educational qualification, age, caste etc. of the petitioner are available on record of Zila Parishad. The respondents further case is that as per Government Resolution No. 2012 dated 16.3.1991, no appointment can be made without prior approval of the Government. The Divisional Commissioner. Hazaribagh got the matter inquired in detail and reported that the appointment was illegal. The Government also decided to initiate action against Sri Saran Tirkey, the then Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer; Hazaribagh for making illegal appointment. 5. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the order of status quo dated 10.1.2000 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1661/98 (R) the respondents have no authority to issue the impugned letter cancelling the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principle of natural justice as the respondent No. 3 did not allow sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. The main point assailed by Mr. Sinha is that the respondents have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in view of the order of status quo dated 10.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 1661/98 (R). The submission of Mr. Sinha has no force at all. CWJC No. 1661/98(R) was filed by one Lalan Kumar Choudhary, who had been continuously working as Junior Engineer since 1983. In that writ petition this Court had passed order of status quo in favour of the said writ petitioner and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the order does not protect the interest of the present petitioner. 7. From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has alleged that in pursuance of the advertisement the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in Zila Parishad but neither the copy of the advertisement nor any document has been annexed to show that in pursuance of the advertisement the petitioner alongwith other candidates applied for the said post. There is also no statement that any written test or interview was conducted. From perusal of the appointment letter it appears that the Deputy Development Commissioner appointed the petitioner purely on temporary ad hoc basis, although he was not competent to make such appointment. There is also no statement that any written test or interview was conducted. From perusal of the appointment letter it appears that the Deputy Development Commissioner appointed the petitioner purely on temporary ad hoc basis, although he was not competent to make such appointment. No procedure of appointment or recruitment rules in reservation policy was followed. When the said appointment came to the notice of the Government, an enquiry was conducted and as per the direction of the Government the petitioner was removed from service. The case of the present petitioner is, therefore, not at all similar to the case of Lalan Kumar Choudhary. It further appears that although the appointment of the petitioner was totally illegal but before cancelling the appointment show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the principle of natural justice was followed. 8. For all these reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed.