ABHAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. The appellants were appointed on various dates between 1988 to 1992 on an ad hoc basis temporarily in the Frozen Semen Bank Project. Although the initial period of appointment was six months, the appellants' services were continued from time to time. Ultimately, their services were terminated in 1998. Some employees similarly situated as the appellants approached the High Court at Ranchi asking for protection of their appointments. They were unsuccessful. The matter came up before this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE Court disposed of the matter by its order dated 23-7-2003 by issuing certain directions. The Court noted that the ad hoc appointees had no right to claim regularisation of services. However, having regard to the fact that they had been appointed in 1988-1989 and had continued to work in the posts for years together, the Court directed the respondent State to constitute a Selection Committee as per the existing rules within a period of three months. The appellants in that case whose services had been terminated were directed to apply to the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry within a period of one month for being reappointed or for regularisation of their services. The Committee was directed to consider the eligibility, suitability, past record as well as the educational qualifications of the appellants in accordance with the relevant rules applicable as on the date of the order. The Committee was also to give relaxation of age and weightage over outsiders. However, if any candidate was found unsuitable for some reason, it would be open to the Committee to reject his application. The appropriate authority was directed to issue orders for appointment after considering the roster and the merit list on available vacancies.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that there were very few vacancies against which any further appointments could be made. It was further pointed out that there were a number of posts which had been illegally filled by the Regional Director and the number of such appointees exceeded the requirement of the Department. It was also stated that pursuant to the earlier order dated 23-7-2003 due to a direction of this Court, a Selection Committee had been set up and some candidates had already been appointed. The learned counsel also submits that they had no objection to grant similar relief to other such appointees but that this should not be repeated so as to debar the claim of other persons who might be appointed directly against the vacancies in the respondent Department.