Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 998 (PAT)

Madan Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar

2014-09-15

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
Order I.A. No. 6671 of 2014 1. This application has been filed seeking amendment in the writ application for the purpose of challenging a decision taken by a Committee of three Secretaries on 21.05.2014 issued vide Memo No. 8143 dated 17.06.2014. 2. I.A. No. 6671 of 2014 is allowed. 3. The petitioner is permitted to challenge the validity of the said decision dated 21.05.2014 issued vide memo No. 8143 dated 17.06.2014 which has been brought on record as Annexure-22 to the said interlocutory application. 4. From the pleadings of the writ application, it appears that by an order dated 16.12.1992 (Annexure-10), the petitioner was removed from service while he was working as Non-Medical Assistant, District Leprosy Control Unit, Begusarai. According to the petitioner, he has been working under National Smallpox Eradication Programme since 01.06.1978 to 15.03.1979 and by an order of the Additional Director Health Services, Bihar dated 28.03.1987, Civil Surgeons were asked to take necessary action for retrenchment of employees working against Class II and Class IV posts. Since the petitioner was one of the such retrenched employees, vide a letter dated 29.06.1987 issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, the petitioner was appointed as Non-Medical Assistant and was posted at Jai Nagar Primary Health Centre, Madhubani where he joined on 03.07.1987. 5. This is his further case that subsequently the petitioner was transferred to the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Begusarai and was paid his salary regularly. On 25.11.1992, the petitioner and other employees were asked to appear before Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, alongwith their documents relating to their appointments whereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna alongwith documents. Thereafter, the In-charge District Leprosy Eradication Officer, Begusarai vide a letter dated 16.12.1992 directed that no work should be taken from the petitioner. This is the order which was originally challenged in the writ application. 6. This is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3027 of 1993 which was disposed of by an order dated 21.12.1993 (Annexure-11). It has been stated that thereafter, since no action was taken upon the petitioner’s representation pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.12.1993, he filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1285 of 2004 again challenging the order dated 16.12.1992. It has been stated that thereafter, since no action was taken upon the petitioner’s representation pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.12.1993, he filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1285 of 2004 again challenging the order dated 16.12.1992. The said writ application was disposed of by an order of this Court alongwith several other writ applications i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11056 of 2000 and other analogous cases with a direction to consider the cases of the petitioner’s in the light of Supreme Court judgment in case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) SCC 1. It was in the light of the said order of this Court that a Three Member Committee of the Secretaries was constituted. By a decision, which has been impugned by the petitioner by filing interlocutory application, petitioner’s case has been rejected on the ground that his appointment letter was found to be forged. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submits that the finding of the Three Member Committee is based on the sole ground that the letter number of the petitioner’s appointment letter does not tally with the Issue Register. He submits that this could not have been the sole basis for rejecting the petitioner’s claim. He secondly submits that several other persons were appointed alongwith the petitioner by the same functionary and they have been ordered to be reinstated in terms of the order of this Court. My attention has been drawn to representation to this effect filed by the petitioner dated 29.04.2014 addressed to Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, referring to specific names who have been reinstated under the orders of this Court or the authorities. There is a finding by the Committee that the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner was forged document and it was issued by an authority not competent to make appointment against the post. I have recently held by an order dated 01.09.2004 (Ajay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 18912 of 2011) that such appointment letters do not constitute any contract between the State and that person and it doesn’t bind the state in any manner. Such appointment is a nullity and void ab initio. I have recently held by an order dated 01.09.2004 (Ajay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 18912 of 2011) that such appointment letters do not constitute any contract between the State and that person and it doesn’t bind the state in any manner. Such appointment is a nullity and void ab initio. The onus to establish that such appointment was made after following due process of selection in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and by a competent authority would lie upon the persons claiming the benefit of appointment. 8. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner despite there being plea that similarly circumstanced persons have been given benefit by their reinstatement in service. Illegality cannot be perpetuated is settled principle of law. However, since there is a specific plea that in exactly similar circumstance other persons have been reinstated in service, I would direct the Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 29.04.2014 as contained in Annexure-21 to the writ application and examine the circumstance in which those persons have been reinstated in service, though they also are said to have obtained the appointment fraudulently. 9. This application is dismissed with the observation as above. 10. The Principal Secretary must take a decision in this regard within a period of six months from today.