Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1074 (JHR)

Amardeep Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-19

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 12.10.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 28.05.1987 and his service was terminated by order dated 17.07.1987. The other similarly situated persons, who were also appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 149151/1996, were also terminated from service pursuant to a direction contained in letter dated 12.07.1987. A writ petition was filed by some of such employees before the Hon'ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 5706 of 1989, challenging the order of termination. The writ petition was allowed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and a liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order. The writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 5706 of 1989 were reinstated in service, however, by order dated 24.12.1993, a show-cause notice was issued to those petitioners and their services were terminated by order dated 05.01.1994. The order dated 05.01.1994 was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 44 of 1994 and which was disposed of by order dated 22.02.1994 with liberty to the respondents to issue appropriate final order after considering the petitioner's reply to the show-cause. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondents passed order dated 11.03.1994, which was impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 3583 of 1994. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that once the reply of the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3583 of 1994 was accepted by the authorities, it was not open to the authorities to terminate the services of the writ petitioners on identical grounds. The present petitioner had also preferred a writ petition before the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 4645 of 2000 (P), which was transferred to this Hon'ble Court after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 17.04.2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was considered by the authority and by order dated 12.10.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Respondent No. 3. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents justifying order dated 12.10.2012. 4. The case of the petitioner was considered by the authority and by order dated 12.10.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Respondent No. 3. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents justifying order dated 12.10.2012. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 has been passed on wrong factual basis and in fact, it does not contain any justifiable reason, more so the said order is vague and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without any basis. 6. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Respondent No. 3. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, it would appear that the petitioner has worked for less than two months. The writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 5706 of 1989 were reinstated in service long back and even though their services were terminated once again, by order of the Court they were again reinstated in service and continued in service. The present petitioner is seeking appointment on Class III post for which now, there is a requirement that such appointment can only be made on the recommendation of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Therefore, after such a long lapse of time, a direction cannot be issued for appointment of the petitioner on a Class III post, dehors the recruitment rules. Though, I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons contained in the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 are not correct and the case of the petitioner has been wrongly identified with the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3017 of 1994, however, I am of the view that since interference with the impugned order would perpetuate illegality, no order can be passed by the Court in the facts of this case. After lapse of about 15 years and particularly, in view of the recruitment rules, no direction can be given for appointment of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.