Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1677 (JHR)

Keshab Paharia v. State of Jharkhand

2012-12-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order vide memo no. 425 dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure-6) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated without any show cause or reasons. Petitioner has also made further prayer to pay the arrears of salary since February to August, 1997. 3. According to the petitioner he was appointed vide Annexure-3 dated 24.11.1990 as Assistant Teacher (Matric) on a pay scale of Rs.945-1,540 in Primary School at Mahuagarhi on daily wages by the order of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. A recommendation was made by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide letter no. 256 dated 16.7.1993 to the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar for considering the case of the petitioner and others for regularization as they have been working since long, i.e. in the case of this petitioner since the year 1990. However, vide annexure-6, petitioner and 7 other persons have been terminated from service by order of the Special Officer, Paharia Welfare, Dumka on the directions of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division through his letter dated 12.8.1997( Annexure-6). 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of one Mary Malti, who was also terminated from service earlier but was taken back in service pursuant to the direction passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6706 of 1997 dated 14.9.1998. The petitioner claims parity with the said person. 5. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that the policies relating to appointment to Class-III and IV post have been changed by the Government of Bihar, Welfare Department and now appointment in class-III post have to be made out of the successful candidate selected through competitive examination by the recruiting body. The petitioner was only engaged on daily wages post in the Primary School, Mahuagarhi by the order of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide memo 24.11.1990 and after the change in the policies of the State Government, now appointment can only be made on the basis of open advertisement. The petitioner was only engaged on daily wages post in the Primary School, Mahuagarhi by the order of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide memo 24.11.1990 and after the change in the policies of the State Government, now appointment can only be made on the basis of open advertisement. The appointment of the petitioner is itself being terminated in the year 1997 and now petitioner cannot seek reliance on the order passed related to other persons in the year 1998 as he himself has approached this Court after about 6 years after his termination and much water has flown thereafter. It is submitted that in the matter of any public appointment equal opportunity to all through the procedure of open advertisement, written test, interview etc. is to be followed and, therefore, petitioner being only engaged in daily wages cannot claim to be regularized on that account, more so when order of termination was passed in 1997 itself due to change in the policy of the State Government. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State categorically stated in respect of the second prayer of payment of salary for the period from February to August, 1997 vide statements made in para 8 and 11 that the respondents have made payment of daily wages amounting to Rs. 17,255 to the petitioner, which has been received by him on 31.8.2001 under his own signature vide Annexure-C series. 7. From the facts narrated herein above and after hearing the counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner was engaged in daily wages post without following the procedure of any public appointment. The State, subsequently changed its policy in conformity with the Article 16 and 14 of the Constitution of India for making any such appointment in Class-III and IV post through open advertisement, test and interview by giving opportunity to all the persons equally situated. Petitioner was terminated in the year 1997 and he preferred writ petition in the year 2003. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard is very well settled and in the matter of public appointment, a person can be considered for appointment only through open advertisement, written test etc after giving equal opportunity to all concerned. 8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard is very well settled and in the matter of public appointment, a person can be considered for appointment only through open advertisement, written test etc after giving equal opportunity to all concerned. 8. Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner being paid arrears of wages, as it appears from the statements made in the counter affidavit, the writ petition otherwise devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed.