Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 79 (PAT)

Rajeev Ranjan v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-19

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 28.6.2002 as contained in Annexure-8 whereby and whereunder he has been removed from his services. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement as contained in Annexure-2 dated 12.11.1997, the petitioner by virtue of the order as contained in Annexure-4 dated 21.1.1997 was appointed on the post of Dresser in Sheikhpura Police Dispensary on temporary basis by the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura and by the impugned order. he has been removed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was appointed pursuant to an advertisement, he could not have been terminated on some other grounds as he continued on the post for about five years. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court for payment of his salary in C.W.J.C. No. 9875 of 2002 and the same was disposed of on 11.9.2002 but in that writ application, the petitioner had not challenged the order of termination and/or removal dated 28.6.2002. It is also stated in the same paragraph that thereafter again the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2003 for the same self-relief but the same was dismissed on 14.2.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in this writ application and since prayer has already been rejected by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2003, this writ application must be held to be hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. 6. From Annexure-2, advertisement, it appears that it was issued on 12.11.1997 and the petitioner was appointed on 21.11.1997 within a short period of eight days. It further appears that for appointment in Police Dispensary on the post of Dresser or Nursing Staff, necessary approval of the Health Department is required but there is nothing in the writ application to show that approval of the Health Department was obtained and this appears to be one of the probable grounds for removal of the petitioner from service. It further appears that for appointment in Police Dispensary on the post of Dresser or Nursing Staff, necessary approval of the Health Department is required but there is nothing in the writ application to show that approval of the Health Department was obtained and this appears to be one of the probable grounds for removal of the petitioner from service. It is not known to the Court as to how the petitioner was appointed within a period of eight days from the date of advertisement. Besides these questions, it appears that the petitioner came to this Court twice and the last writ application filed by him, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2003 which was filed much after passing of the impugned order, was dismissed. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Before I part with this order. I would like to say that in the present with application, the petitioner nowhere has made statement that he had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9875 of 2002 and C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2003. In paragraph 20 of the writ application, it is merely stated that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier against the order impugned. The order impugned is dated 28.6.2002 and it appears that even after removal of the petitioner from service, he came to this Court in 2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 2003. The petitioner himself has sworn this affidavit and it appears to be a case of suppression of material fact. 9. Under the circumstances. issue notice to the writ petitioner as to why he should not be prosecuted for swearing false affidavit in this Court.