SURESH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by twelve persons who were employees of the Darbhanga Regional Development Authority. The original prayer of the writ petitioners in this writ application filed on 20th February, 1995 was for regularisation of their services but subsequently the prayer was amended seeking quashing of order dated 21.12.1995 (annexure -6) by which their services were terminated.

(2.) ON the basis of annexure -1 dated 14.10.92, the petitioners ' claim that the posts on which they were appointed had been duly created by the Darbhanga Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as D.R.D.A.). A decision to appoint petitioners on ad hoc basis appears to have been taken on 14.10.92 itself, pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis vide various orders dated 30th December, 1992. contained in annexure -2 series. The resolution dated 14.10.92 was confirmed in the meeting of the committee dated 14.6.93 and this fact appears to have been communicated to the ad hoc appointees, the petitioners, as appears from annexure -4, an order dated 13.7.93 which is with regard to one of the petitioners. It appears that a grievance against the action of the D.R.D.A. in appointing the petitioners to various Class -Ill and Class -IV posts on ad hoc basis was raised before the Bihar Legislative Council and on the basis of Government 'sreply and assurance given in the Council a letter dated 3.1.95 was issued by the Secretary of the Urban Development Deptt. Government of Bihar addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga communicating the decision of the Government cancelling the appointment of all the twelve petitioners on the ground that they were illegal appointees. The impugned order contained in annexure -6 bears a reference to the said letter dated 3.1.95 which is part of annexure -A series to the counter affidavit of State and its officials and on that basis the petitioners ' services were terminated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State as well as D.R.D.A. submitted that the State Government has the necessary power under section 65 of the Act if it is satisfied that any order or resolution of the authority under the Act is in excess of power conferred by law. Further submission was that the rules for appointment provide for advertisement in two newspapers and selection after holding written test. If the authority chooses to make appointments without following the procedure laid down under the law then the State Government will have the power to hold that the order or resolution of the authority or its officials is in excess of the power conferred by the law.