Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 547 (PAT)

Upendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-06-28

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2006
ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter nos. 269, 262, 271, 268 and 270 dated 23.5.2001 by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Further prayer of the petitioners is for commanding the respondents to reinstate them in their respective services with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners were appointed by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Magadh Range, Gaya by different appointment letters prior to 28.10.1991. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 9.10.1991, petitioner no. 2 on 24.10.1991 and petitioner nos. 3, 4, and 5 by letter dated 27.10.1991. 4. Petitioners case is that all five petitioners were appointed legally by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry who was empowered through letter no. 5094 dated 4.7.1987 (Annexure-28) to make appointment on Class IV posts. All five petitioners were appointed on vacant posts existing at that time observing all necessary legal formalities and they have continued to discharge their duty on their respective posts. Subsequently the petitioners were transferred to different place and confirmed on their respective posts by the local appointment committee. By Memo No. 2084 dated 16.4.1996 a direction was issued to hold enquiry in respect of only those appointments which were made after 28.10.1991 as thereafter the Regional Director has no power to make such appointment. Though petitioners were appointed prior to 28.10.1991. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry asked the petitioners to submit show cause regarding the genuineness of their appointment. Petitioners submitted their show cause before the Regional Director stating that their appointments have been done after following the due procedure and proper rules and regulations by the competent authority. 5. Petitioners grievance is that without properly considering their show cause they have been terminated from service by the impugned ORDER :s. Counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly situated persons who were also appointed prior to 28.10.1991 by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry and were subsequently terminated had filed CWJC No. 13328 of 1992. The writ application was allowed and the termination ORDER :s were quashed. The ORDER :passed in the writ application has been annexed as annexure-31 to the writ application. 6. The writ application was allowed and the termination ORDER :s were quashed. The ORDER :passed in the writ application has been annexed as annexure-31 to the writ application. 6. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the appointment of the petitioners is illegal as by Memo No. 7639 dated 11.9.1986 strict instruction was issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms that there will be no ad hoc appointment after 1.8.1985. Ignoring this instruction the petitioners were appointed by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry without following the procedure for appointment. In this circumstance the petitioners cannot claim for consideration of their cases on ground of equity, simply because they have discharged their duties for 10 to 20 years. Reliance has been placed on an unreported decision of this Court in Satrughan Sao vs. State of Bihar and other, CWJC No. 8817 of 2001. 7. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far the appointment of the petitioners are concerned, it is not in violation of Memo No. 7639 dated 11.9.1986 as the Government itself through letter no. 509 dated 4.7.1987 had empowered the Regional Director to make appointment of Class IV posts and in compliance of the directive of the Government the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry has appointed the petitioners and other persons. It has also been submitted that the decision of this Court in CWJC No. 8817 of 2001 has no application in the case of the petitioners considering the fact that the petitioners in that writ application had not continued to discharge their duties uninterruptedly against sanctioned vacant posts for more than ten years. They were stopped to discharge their duties on earlier occasion also and their appointments were not made after observing all legal formalities. So far the petitioners are concerned they have continued to discharge their duties against vacant posts uninterruptedly for more than 10-12 years. Their appointments were also made by an authority empowered to make such appointment after observing all formalities. The case of the petitioners is not similar to the case of the petitioners in CWJC No. 8817 of 2001. 8. From the materials on record and the submissions made by the parties it is evident that the case of these petitioners is similar to the case of petitioners in CWJC No. 5140 of 1998 (Annexure-30). The case of the petitioners is not similar to the case of the petitioners in CWJC No. 8817 of 2001. 8. From the materials on record and the submissions made by the parties it is evident that the case of these petitioners is similar to the case of petitioners in CWJC No. 5140 of 1998 (Annexure-30). The question of appointment of Class IV employees appointed after 28.10.1991 is not for consideration before the State and its authority, as after 28.10.1991 the Regional Deputy Director had no power to make appointment. The Secretary, Animal Husbandry issued a direction to remove those appointments which were made by the Regional Director after 28.10.1991. All these petitioners were appointed prior to 28.10.1991 and that is itself enough to hold that there was no ground for terminating the services of the petitioners on the basis of the impugned ORDER :s. 9. Accordingly the impugned letters of termination contained in Annexures-6, 10, 12, 17 and 23 are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners on their respective posts and all consequential benefits be also allowed in favour of the petitioners. This application is accordingly allowed.