Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 178 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Representation of the petitioner for considering his case for reinstatement made in view of the judgment rendered in WPS No. 3524/2007 dated 9th August 2011 has been rejected by the impugned order contained at Annexure-23 dated 20th February 2013 issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. 3. The background facts of the instant case are that the petitioner who claims to have been appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year 1986 in the office of Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi under the Water Resources Department of the erstwhile state of Bihar, was terminated from service vide Memo No. 2875 dated 19th December 2000 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWJC No. 534/2001. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13th March 2002 with a direction to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand to determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. It was however observed that if it is found that the appointment of the petitioner was made after due advertisement and selection, he will not terminate his service merely on the ground that there was a ban of appointment or the reservation policy was not followed and 14 years have passed. However, a fresh order was passed on 20th February 2004 once again terminating the service of the petitioner which was challenged by him in WPS No. 2091/2004 before this Court. By judgment at Annexure-5 dated 27th July 2006, the writ petition was dismissed by this court by holding which is as under: “After termination, petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.534 of 2004. This writ petition came be disposed of vide order dated 13th March, 2002. Relevant directions of the Court read as under:- “The case is remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. This writ petition came be disposed of vide order dated 13th March, 2002. Relevant directions of the Court read as under:- “The case is remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. If it is found that the appointment of petitioner was made after due advertisement and selection, he will not terminate his service merely on the ground that there was a ban of appointment or the reservation policy was not followed, 14 years having passed.” On the basis of the aforesaid directions, an enquiry was conducted and petitioner was put to notice to explain the circumstances appearing against him. It came to the notice that petitioner’s initial selection was without following any procedure in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby, no advertisement/notice was issued. Petitioner was never interviewed and selected by any competent authority and his appointment was totally illegal and in contravention to the rules. Accordingly, the authority has passed afresh order on 20th February, 2004. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that in some other case, some directions were issued and the employee has been reinstated. Admittedly, the aforesaid judgment has attained finality. Respondents have only implemented the directions of the Court and while implementing the same; they came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s appointment was totally illegal and contrary to law and consequently, he has been terminated from service. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.” 4. The petitioner went in appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 412/2006. However, the LPA was also dismissed by the Letters Patent Court by judgment dated 13th January 2009 finding no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The said judgment is at annexure-6 to the instant writ application. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has sought to make out a case that many similarly situated persons who were also terminated, had occasion to move this Court in several writ applications which were decided in their favour and the letters patent appeal and the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Some of the judgments in the cases of other persons are enclosed as Annexure-7 to 19 to the instant writ petition. 6. Taking a cue from this, the petitioner at his own though was not a party in WPS No. 3524/2007, made a representation for once again consideration of his case for reinstatement like other persons who he claims to be similarly situated. The said representation has been rejected by Annexure-23 issued by the Water Resources Department. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted by referring to Annexure-21 which is an information furnished under the RTI, that several such persons who were earlier engaged and were terminated, have been reinstated in service. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner's case also was required to be considered in view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 918/2008 which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said interim order is quoted hereunder: “Learned counsel for the State points out that because of judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ] these persons cannot continue. We are, however, of the clear opinion that since these persons are working on the sanctioned posts, and are continuing for a substantial number of years, it will be better for the State Government to consider as to whether these persons can be regularised. We are passing this order not by way of precedent but to find out as to what is the present situation available and whether the State Government would be required to fill up those posts. The State Government is directed to consider the matter. Learned counsel is directed to come back to this Court to file an affidavit in compliance of the same after three months of the communication of this order. The State Government to file an affidavit in the light of the observation made hereinabove.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as also judgments rendered in the case of the petitioner and the interim order relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-16 as also other relevant materials on record. The State Government to file an affidavit in the light of the observation made hereinabove.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as also judgments rendered in the case of the petitioner and the interim order relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-16 as also other relevant materials on record. As would appear from the reading of Annexure-5 judgment dated 27th July 2006 passed in the case of the petitioner, it is apparent that the order of termination of the petitioner passed on 20th February 2004 was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge with a categorical finding that his initial selection was made without any procedure in accordance with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He was never interviewed and selected by any competent authority and that his appointment was illegal and in contravention to the rules. These facts were borne out from the inquiry conducted after the matter was earlier remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition CWJC No. 534/2001 where petitioner had challenged his first termination order dated 19th December 2002. 9. As aforesaid, the petitioner lost in appeal also vide judgment dated 13th January 2009 passed in LPA No. 412/2006. These judgments therefore attained finality and the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner was upheld. 10. The case of other persons which have been relied upon by the petitioner by citing several judgments annexed to the writ petition, will not come to the help of the petitioner as in the present case, termination of the petitioner had attained finality and the same cannot be overturned by taking resort to the judgment rendered in respect of other persons. The petitioner admittedly was not a party in WPS No. 3524/2007, but he appears to have made a representation for reconsideration of his case. Since the matter have been finally settled by judgment of this Court earlier, the respondent could not have taken a stand otherwise as it would have amounted to breach of the judgment passed in the petitioner's own case and upset the finality of the issue raised by the petitioner himself. Since the matter have been finally settled by judgment of this Court earlier, the respondent could not have taken a stand otherwise as it would have amounted to breach of the judgment passed in the petitioner's own case and upset the finality of the issue raised by the petitioner himself. On perusal of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Annexure-16, it would reveal that such observations were made in respect of persons who were working on the sanctioned post and were continuing for substantial number of years. In the context, it was observed that the State Government would consider as to whether these persons can be regularized. The petitioner obviously could not claim the benefit of the said interim order as at the relevant point of time when such an interim order was passed in Civil Appeal No. 918/2008, he had already been terminated from service on 20th February 2004. 11. In such circumstances, the present attempt on the part of the petitioner to reopen the matter which has finally been settled by virtue of judgment rendered by this Court earlier, is a futile exercise. In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out for interference in this writ petition. This writ petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.