Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 347 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-03-13

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2000 whereby and whereunder the Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation-cum-Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. Patna terminated the service of petitioner. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk by Memo No. 169 dated 11.12.1986. Subsequently, his appointment having found illegal, show cause notice was given. In the meantime, petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1485/98(R), whereinafter the petitioner was again noticed but the authorities having not received any reply, issued impugned order No. 2875 dated 19.12.2000 terminating his service on the ground of illegal appointment. 4. It is alleged that though there is a ban of appointment made by the Government vide Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar-Patnas letter No. 7689 dated 11.6.1986 but the petitioner was appointed on 11.12.1986 in violation of the said order and the appointment was made without following the procedure of appointment and the reservation policy. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, no specific averment made but mere stand taken that the order has been Issued by Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation- cum-Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, who is the authority, can give proper reply. 6. It is not in dispute that on re-organisation of State and creation of Jharkhand since 15th November, 2000, the State of Bihar or the authorities under the State of Bihar had no Jurisdiction to pass any order in respect to the Government employee posted within the State of Jharkhand. In this context, one may refer a Bench decision in Arvind Bilung, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 227 as confirmed by the Division Bench. 7. As admittedly, the Director. Land Acquisition and Rehabititation-cum- Depury Secretary. Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna had no jurisdiction and control over the employees posted in the State of Jharkhand including the petitioner, the order dated 19.12.2000 is set aside. 8. The case is remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. 8. The case is remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. If it is found that the appointment of petitioner was made after due advertisement and selection, he will not terminate his service merely on the ground that there was a ban of appointment or the reservation policy was not followed, 14 years having passed. 9. It will be open to the authority to call for records from the State of Bihar or from the place the petitioner was posted. 10. It will also be open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. Ranchi that he was appointed after following the procedure and may give reference of the advertisement, interview letter and the selection as were made. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 12. Let a copy of this order be handed over o learned S.C.I.