Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 715 (PAT)

Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 24.11.2000, issued vide memo no. 1687, as contained in annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner on the post of orderly peon has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that certain vacancies for Class IV posts had occurred in the District of Bettiah in the respective offices of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur. The posts were notified on the notice board of the office of the Regional Deputy Director and names were called for from the local Employment Exchange, pursuant to which certain names were recommended by the Employment Exchange including that of the petitioner. The authorities after due scrutiny and finding the petitioner and others eligible for appointment on Class IV posts issued appointment letters, so far the petitioner is concerned vide annexure 3 dated 17.12.1993 and the petitioner was posted as orderly peon in the office of the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Bagaha in the District of West Champaran. It is further submitted that after continuance of the petitioner in services, a show-cause notice was given to him, which he replied and by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 1, his appointment on the post of orderly peon has been cancelled. Learned counsel further submitted that the Regional Deputy Director of Education was the competent authority to appoint the persons on Class IV posts by virtue of the Rules framed by the State Government, as contained in annexure 2, and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the posts as such were not advertised nor any procedure known to law was followed in appointment of the petitioner and others and reservation and roster policy were not followed. 5. From the materials on record, it is manifest that the sanctioned posts, which has fallen vacant, meant for Class IV posts, were notified on the notice board of the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education and names were called for from the Employment Exchange. The petitioners name was also recommended and on the basis of the recommendation of the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was found eligible for the post and, accordingly, he was appointed. 6. The petitioners name was also recommended and on the basis of the recommendation of the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was found eligible for the post and, accordingly, he was appointed. 6. In the counter affidavit, the fact that the names were called for from the Employment Exchange is not being denied. 7. It is true that the public posts, if and when, fall vacant, the same should be advertised, so that the public at large may know about the vacancy, but, at the same time, calling for the names from the Employment Exchange and making appointment pursuant to that is equally known mode of appointment. It does not appear to be a case that only the petitioner was considered and appointed on Class IV post, rather so many persons were appointed on the basis of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange. 8. The question involved in this writ application has already been set at rest by various judgments of this Court. In case of Sri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Bihar and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999, a learned single Judge of this Court faced with similar situation has approved the appointment on the basis of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange. The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari (supra), in that view of the matter, squarely covers this case. It is informed at the bar that the order passed by this Court in the case of Sri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari (supra) has been affirmed up the Supreme Court. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this writ application is allowed and is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999 and the order impugned as contained in annexure 1 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for his salary for the period actually he has not worked. It is needless to say that now onwards pursuant to this order, the petitioner will be entitled for his salary.