Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 306 (JHR)

Ram Pravesh Kumar (Mapak) v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-03-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the, office order contained in Memo No. 600, dated 05.06.1998 issued under the signature of Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the Rehabilitation Officer, who had appointed the petitioner had no authority or power to make such appointment and therefore, the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 by issue of an Office Order vide Annexure 1 under the signature of Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi, to the post of Chain Man (Janzeer Wahak). Subsequently, by issue of a letter dated 12th January, 1989 the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar the petitioner was promoted to the post of Amin. 3. The petitioner lastly was posted at Chaibasa and was working to the post of "Mapak" in the year 1997. 4. Subsequently, in the year 1998 by issue of Annexure 9, i.e., the impugned order, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 5. Several writ applications were filed before Patna High Court on the same and similar facts and grounds. A batch of writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3348 of 1997 with other several writ applications were heard together by a Bench of High Court. The order of Patna High Court In the aforesaid writ applications has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the present writ application. From the aforesaid order of Patna High Court it appears that the High Court categorised the petitioners in three categories. 6. Category-A, of those writ petitioners whose services were terminated because they had failed to produce their original letters of appointment. 7. The 2nd category which was categorised as Category B, were of those persons whose services were terminated but they were subsequently appointed as retrenched employee by competent officer but the Government considered their subsequent appointment by competent officer to be of no consequence. 8. The 3rd category which was categorised as Category C was of those persons whose services were terminated on the ground that their appointment authority, i.e., the Rehabilitation Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to make such appointments. 9. 8. The 3rd category which was categorised as Category C was of those persons whose services were terminated on the ground that their appointment authority, i.e., the Rehabilitation Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to make such appointments. 9. From the order of Patna High Court it appears that with regard to the cases falling under Category C the writ application were allowed and the order of termination were quashed and the responfdents were directed to consider the matter of regularisation of services of such petitioners. The judgment and orders passed in several other writ applications on similar grounds has been annexed as Annexures 11 and 12 to the present writ application. 10. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, it appears that the ground for termination of the services of the petitioner was that the Rehabilitation Officer who appointed the petitioner had no jurisdiction to make such appointments. 11. In the present case the writ petitioner was appointed by Rehabilitation Officer but subsequently by issue of Annexure 3, the Director, had promoted him to the post of Amin in the year 1989 and therefore, it would deem that the Director had the tacit approval of the appointment of the petitioner. The respondent do not dispute that the Director had the authority to make such appointments and therefore, in my view, the case of the petitioner is similar to those writ petitioner falling under Category C in order passed by the Patna High Court and therefore, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the orders passed by Patna High Court in similar matters. 12. In this view of the matter the order of termination of the services of the petitioner passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure 9 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure 9 dated 05.06.1998 is hereby quashed.