Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 674 (PAT)

Dinesh Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-04-25

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, High Court and interveners. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Contingent Menial in the Civil Court, Sitamarhi way back in the year 1983, 1985. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of appointment order no.17/2007 dated 13.07.2007, Annexure-13 whereunder District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi removed the petitioners while they served the judgeship as Contingent Menial on the ground that appointment of petitioners was without undergoing any selection process. By filing this writ petition petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2007 on the ground that petitioners having rendered service as Contingent Menial from the year 1983, 1985 and prior thereto as Candidate Peon against Leave Reserve Vacancy under Rule 73 of the Civil Court Rules they have given the judgeship of Sitamarhi better part of their life and to remove them at this stage of life is nothing but arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as Rules 73, 77 of the Civil Court Rules providing for appointment of Candidate Peon as Contingent Menial has been held to be ultra-vires by this Court under judgment dated 25.8.1993 in the case of Mohammad Saghir & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1994(2) PLJR 427. Appointment Rules providing for advertisement for appointment on Class-IV post in the judgeship was framed for the first time in 1992 vide Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and IV) Rules, 1992 and thereafter in 2001, 2009, in terms whereof appointment on Class IV post in the judgeship is to be made after issue of advertisement and conducting selection process and not from amongst the Candidate Peons. Petitioners, though appointed as Contingent Menial in terms of Rules 73, 77 much before the Rules were declared ultra-vires on 25.8.1993 the appointment of the petitioners as Contingent Menial ought not to have been cancelled, so submitted learned counsel for the petitioners and intervener respondents. Petitioners, though appointed as Contingent Menial in terms of Rules 73, 77 much before the Rules were declared ultra-vires on 25.8.1993 the appointment of the petitioners as Contingent Menial ought not to have been cancelled, so submitted learned counsel for the petitioners and intervener respondents. The High Court, however, relying on its 1985 instruction to make Class-IV appointment in judgeship after advertisement and undertaking selection process issued direction to set aside the appointment of petitioners and similarly situate other Contingent Menial(s) which order has also been affirmed in the judicial side by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court under judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2298-2299 of 2005 in compliance whereof the impugned termination order dated 13.7.2007, Annexure-13 has been issued in the case of petitioners. Having terminated the appointment of the petitioners and others a fresh selection process for recruitment on Class IV post in the judgeship of Sitamarhi has been initiated. In response whereto petitioners and other Contingent Menials have also applied as Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 31.03.2005 granted the Contingent Menials liberty to apply in the fresh selection process with further direction that Contingent Menial(s) be granted relaxation in age. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition directing the District Judge, Sitamarhi to consider the case of the petitioners and other similarly situate Contingent Menials who have been removed from Class-IV post in compliance of the direction of the High Court granting the erstwhile Contingent Menial not only relaxation in age but also weightage for the satisfactory service rendered by them either as Candidate Peon or as Contingent Menial. Such observation is being made as petitioner no.1 was appointed as Contingent Menial with effect from 1.3.1983 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 with effect from 15.6.1985 i.e. much before Rules 73 and 77 were declared ultra-vires under judgment dated 25.8.1993.