Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 110 (PAT)

Umesh Chandra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-23

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 1, issued vide memo No. 1252 dated 28.07.1998, whereby and whereunder services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 2 dated 31.03.1991, the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna and the petitioner continued in services and now without any rhyme or reason he has been terminated. It is further submitted that no specific reason has been mentioned in the order impugned and it is simply stated that his appointment was found to be illegal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the selection of the candidates after cut off date 28.10.1991 has been found to be illegal and without jurisdiction and since the petitioner joined the post on 1.11.1991 he was considered to be an appointee after the cut off date. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that on verification of the relevant records the memo number, as referred to in annexure 2 has not been found to be true, and, thus, the appointment of the petitioner was found to be doubtful. 5. From annexure 2, it appears that the petitioner was appointed vide order, issued under memo No. 1313 dated 31.03.1991, much before the cut off date, as mentioned in the counter affidavit i.e. 20.10.1991. The appointment of the petitioner, therefore, must be held to be much before the cut off date and merely because he joined the post in November 1991 he cannot be said to be an appointee after the cut off date. Besides this, the petitioner continued in service for about seven years and now he is being terminated on untenable grounds. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, equity is required to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 1, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his post. However, he will not be entitled for salary for the terminated period.