Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1095 (JHR)

Binay Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-12-01

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No, 985 of 2002 dismissed the said writ petition. 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 6.9.1997 by which services of the petitioner was terminated and also for quashing the letter dated 31.12.2001 by which his representation was rejected holding that the officer appointed the petitioner was not competent. 4. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed for three months on the post of Storekeeper without following the procedure and recruitment rules and also Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The services of the petitioner was extended time to time and ultimately in 1997, petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner challenged the said termination order in CWJC No. 9977 of" 1997 and the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court in terms of order dated 5.8.1999 refused to interfere with the order of termination and disposed of the writ petition. In the said judgment/order, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner failed to establish that he was appointed by the competent authority. The learned single Judge .in a very categorical terms held that the termination order needs no interference. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation before the authority. It is worth to mention here that the said judgment was not challenged by the petitioner by filing Letters Patent Appeal and the said order attained its finality. However, the petitioner filed a representation but the same was rejected on the ground that he was not appointed by the competent person. 5. Mr. Binod Poddar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging both the order of termination and also order by which his representation was rejected. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by passing following orders :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has earlier moved this Court in CWJC No. 9977 of 1997 for quashing annexure-1 in the writ application and this very order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this" writ application whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by passing following orders :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has earlier moved this Court in CWJC No. 9977 of 1997 for quashing annexure-1 in the writ application and this very order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this" writ application whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. A Bench of this Court by order dated 5.8.1999 held that the respondent No. 3, in the said writ application who appointed the petition on the post of Store Keeper, was not competent authority to appoint him and ultimately, held that the order contained in annexure-1 cannot be quashed. However, it appears that by way of sympathy, a liberty was given to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No. 2, who was directed to dispose of the representation, if filed by the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner somehow or the other remained in service for about twelve years. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Patna by annexure-9 dated 31.12/2001, has disposed of the representation of the petitioner rejecting his claim on the ground mentioned in the said order. For the reasons stated in annexure-9, I am of the view that no illegality has been committed and it cannot be said that the order passed by the Director is in any way wrong or illegal. Hence, this application has got no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. 6. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel vehemently argued and assailed the order passed by the respondent authority terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that once a person is appointed even by irregular manner but continued in services for few years acquired equitable right to continue in the said post and, therefore, the order of termination is illegal. We are not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel. As noticed above, the order of termination which was passed in 1997 was challenged in aforementioned writ petition and this Court held that the person who appointed the petitioner for three months was not at all competent and Patna High Court refused to interfere with the said order and the said judgment/order having attained its finality, this Court cannot and shall not again see the validity of the said order of termination. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant shall have no application at all. In our view, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination having been dismissed earlier by the Patna High Court, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.