Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 666 (PAT)

Binod Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-08-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure 1, issued vide memo no. 2106 dated 19.7.2004 whereby and whereunder a general direction has been issued by the Secretary of the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to terminate the services of the petitioners and similarly situated persons mentioned in Annexure 1 from the post of Clerks. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed after calling for names from the Employment Exchange by the Conservator of Forests in between the years 1985-86. The petitioners thereafter continued in service and their service records were opened. Thereafter the petitioners were granted time bound promotion after completion of fifteen years of service and by the impugned order they are sought to be terminated from services. It is further submitted by learned counsel that since the petitioners were appointed after following due process of law by the competent authority. The matter could not have been re-opened and examined again almost after twenty years of their service and in view of the continuance of the petitioners in services, equity should be invoked in their favour. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but no plausible explanation as to for what reasons the petitioners are being removed from services. It is only stated that some of the posts were of the State cadre and, therefore, the appointment made by the Conservator of Forests must be held to be ab initio void. This fact, however, has not been clarified in the counter affidavit as to whether at the time of induction of the petitioners in service some of the posts belonged to the State cadre. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the contrary, submits that at the time the petitioners were appointed, all posts were of the divisional offices and no one of the cadre of State was selected and appointed along- with the petitioners by the Conservator of Forests. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed after following the procedures of law by the competent authority, their service records were opened and they were given the benefit of first time bound promotion. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed after following the procedures of law by the competent authority, their service records were opened and they were given the benefit of first time bound promotion. Even assuming that certain procedural defects are found in the appointment of the petitioners, in my opinion, the authorities, after twenty years, acquiesced in the infirmities if any by allowing the petitioners to continue in service uninterruptedly. This court in the case of Sitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.VV.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003) and its analogous cases reported in 2003 Vol. 4 P.L.J.R. 282 held that such action of the State authorities is wholly without jurisdiction and the petitioners are entitled for equitable relief. The authorities, in this view of the matter, were wholly unjustified and unreasonable in re-opening the matters finding faults in the appointment of the petitioners almost after two decades. 6. The petitioners had spent prime of their age while continuing in service for twenty years and this would be the duty of the State of Bihar which is a Welfare State to protect them and ensure their livelihood. 7. At the face of the materials on record and the impugned order, I do not find any cogent reasons whatsoever to terminate the petitioners from the services. The action of the State authorities thus is held to be highly unreasonable, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. By way of an affidavit, it is stated by the petitioners that they have already been removed from services. 8. Considering the facts and circum-stances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 and the consequential orders whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been removed are quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. 9. No costs.