Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 639 (PAT)

Brajesh Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and reply to the counter affidavit. 2. Substantially, by this writ application, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to act upon the order, as contained in Annexure 3, issued vide memo no. 7874-75 dated 28.10.1988. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of orderly peon by virtue of order, as contained in Annexure 3 dated 28.10.1988 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined and by virtue of order, as contained in Annexure 6, he was again appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the year 1989 and, however, subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the petitioner requested respondent no. 6 to accept his joining on the post of orderly peon as per order, as contained in annexure 3. 4. From the order, as contained in Annexure 3, it appears that the petitioner was appointed by respondent no. 5, the School Inspectress-cum-Directress of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna on account of death of one Dwarika Prasad, who was working on the post of orderly peon under respondent no. 6. 5. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed without following the procedures for appointment, inasmuch as the post was not advertised nor applications were invited. 6. Respondent no. 5, as it appears, adopted the procedure quite unknown to law for appointment on the post of orderly peon. 7. The petitioner now prays for direction to accept his joining on the post of orderly peon by virtue of Annexure 3, issued in the year 1988. 8. The order impugned, per se, ap pears to be illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and it has no legal sanctity and it has lost its force after appointment of the petitioner on Class III post from which he was subsequently terminated. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find sufficient reasons to give direction to the respondents to act upon the order, as contained in Annexure 3. 10. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.