Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 301 (PAT)

Jawahar Jha v. State of Bihar

2003-03-11

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. The order as contained in Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 13 dated 7.1.2003 is under challenge whereby and where under appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners initially were working under the work charged establishment under the respondents and when they completed a period of five years, they were considered for their regularization by the authorities and vide notification as contained in Annexure-7 series they were appointed on class III post as revenue clerks vide notification as contained in Memo No.2890 dated 4.9.1978 and when they continued on class III post for 25 years, their appointments have been cancelled. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the Superintending Engineer Canal Division. Saharsa (11.3.2003) a was not the competent authority to appoint the petitioners on class III post as the nature of their work was related to collection of revenue and therefore the competent authority to appoint on class III post was the appropriate Government. It appears from the counter affidavit that question of irregular appointment under the respondents was raised on the floor of the Legislative Council by one of the Members of Legislative Council and thereafter the authorities have passed the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 It is not in dispute that the petitioners initially were working under work charged establishment and after their continuance under work charged establishment for about 25 years they were considered for regularization and they were regularly appointed on class III post with effect from 4.9.1978. The question of competence of the appointing authority in my opinion cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage when the petitioners continued to work on class III post for more than 25 years. It does not appear to be a case where the petitioners are alleged to have played any fraud upon the respondents and by misrepresentation of facts they got themselves appointed on class III post. It does not appear to be an action taker1 by tile authorities in routine manner rather it appears that the matter was raised in the Legislative Council and thereafter order impugned has been passed. From the materials on record it appears that the authorities have not applied their minds to the facts and circumstances of the case. It does not appear to be an action taker1 by tile authorities in routine manner rather it appears that the matter was raised in the Legislative Council and thereafter order impugned has been passed. From the materials on record it appears that the authorities have not applied their minds to the facts and circumstances of the case. The infirmities which are shown in the order impugned no where available to them even at the time of appointment of the petitioners in 1978. By allow in these petitioners to continue on class III post for about 24 years the authorities have now acquiesced in infirmity. Thus the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated on their substantive post of revenue clerks with all consequential benefits. There will be no order as costs.