Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 296 (PAT)

Surendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. All these writ applications since involve common question of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. The dispute in these writ applications relates to the validity of appointment of the petitioners on Class III and Class IV posts. 4. According to the case of the petitioners, they were appointed in between the years 1992 and 1994 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, on Class III and Class IV posts, after following the procedures laid down in law and they continued in services and by the impugned orders now they have been terminated only after issuing show-cause notices to them. ln C.W.J.C. Nos. 6609 of 2000, 9161 of 2000 and 6878 of 2000 the impugned orders of termination have been stayed by this Court and they are said to have been working on the posts by virtue of the orders passed by this Court. 5. According to the case of the respondent State, the petitioners were not appointed after following the procedures of law and their appointment was bad on account of non-observance of the procedures laid down is Circular No. 5939 dated 18.6.1993 and the subsequent circulars. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that like matters were heard by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7025 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 2001 and the impugned orders of termination were quashed. It is further submitted that the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 2001 in case of Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and ors. has also been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 1245 of 2002 and the appeal aforesaid was dismissed. 7. Xerox copies of the orders passed in the writ application and Letters Patent Appeal aforesaid have been produced before me for my perusal. From the orders passed by this Court, as referred to above, I find the facts in the cases at hand are similar and the questions of law involved therein also appear to be similar. 8. The State authorities have taken the common plea in all these writ applications that appointments were made de hors the provisions of law and in violation of provisions of the Circular, as referred to above. 8. The State authorities have taken the common plea in all these writ applications that appointments were made de hors the provisions of law and in violation of provisions of the Circular, as referred to above. The cases at hand, therefore, are held to be similar to that of C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 2001 and C.W.J.C. No. 7025 of 2000. The orders passed in those writ applications, therefore, squarely cover the cases at hand. 9. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is held that the orders of termination are not sustainable in law and these writ applications are disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 2001, against which Letters Patent Appeal aforesaid has already been dismissed and the orders impugned terminating the petitioners are set aside and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits as admissible in law. 10. No order as to costs.