Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 43 (PAT)

Akhilesh Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure t, issued vide memo no. 315 dated 1.9.1999, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated from services. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in the year 1986 and the authorities finding the services of the petitioner quite satisfactory considered his case for appointment on Class III post and by virtue of order, as contained in annexure 10, issued vide memo no. 353 dated 30th March, 1988 the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna, appointed him on substantive basis on Class III post. Thereafter, by virtue of order, as contained in annexure 11, the petitioner was transferred by the order of the Director, Animal Husbandry on 9th June, 1989 and the petitioner thereafter continued in services uninterruptedly and all of a sudden, by order, as contained in annexure 1 the petitioner was terminated from services without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis in the year 1988 by the Regional Director and by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 11, since he was transferred by the order of the Director, it would be deemed that he approved the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post. 4. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner was appointed on Class III post without advertising the post and it appears to be a case of back door appointment. 5. From the facts, as noticed above, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on Class ill post to the knowledge of the authority, as he was registered in the Employment Exchange and thereafter he was transferred from one place to another by virtue of the order of the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar. 6. It does not appear to be a case where the petitioner obtained his appointment by playing fraud or misrepresentation of facts, rather it appears that he was allowed to continue in service by the orders of the authority concerned. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner continued on the post aforesaid for more than ten years and by efflux of time, it would not be appropriate for the authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner continued on the post aforesaid for more than ten years and by efflux of time, it would not be appropriate for the authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the State authority is held to be arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 1, is set aside. 10. No order as to costs.