DINESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relate to same controversy and involve common questions of law and facts and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) ALL the 23 petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 337/99, four petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 602/99 and the sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4998/99 have common service history and interest. For the sake of convenience general facts have been taken from records of C.W.J.C. No. 337/99 which was argued first, unless otherwise indicated in the judgment. At different points of time between 1983 to 1985 petitioners were appointed on various Class -Ill posts in the Muffasil Establishment of Collectorate at Gopalganj. It appears that a common decision was taken in the year 1988 to terminate the appointments of the petitioners and some others on the ground that they had been illegally appointed. However, before such decision dated 7.9.88 could be implemented some of the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 250/1988 challenging the decision for termination of such appointments. That writ application was decided on 15.1.1988 (annexure -2). This court did not interfere with the proposed order of termination since the petitioners were holding only ad hoc appointments but observed and directed that regular vacancies should be advertised and all formalities for appointment to the available vacancies should be completed within four months from the date of the order. It was further observed that if the petitioners also apply then the respondents may consider the desirability of relaxing the age limit if any of them is selected. It was further observed that in case during the period of four months any appointment is felt necessary the respondents may choose any of the petitioners for such ad hoc appointment but such appointment shall not give any advantage in the matter of selection for regular appointment in accordance with law. The respondents were further directed to take into account the experience gained by the petitioners until removal by the impugned order. Against the order of this Court dated 15.1.1988 some of the aggrieved petitioners preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court wherein by an interim order termination of petitioners ' service was stayed but the said Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed on 10.4.95. Thereafter the concerned persons were removed from service by order dated 2.1.96 (annexure -3). That order was challenged but the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 765/96 was dismissed on 22.3.96 and a Letters Patent Appeal filed in the matter was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.8.97.

(3.) THE aforesaid facts are just the background materials which show that the petitioners were illegal appointees whose ad hcc appointments were decided to be terminated in January 1988 and their writ petitions against such a decision were also of no help to them except that they continued in service till January/February 1996. In the present writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the subsequent process of selection, panel of selected persons contained in annexures 15 and 16 and also the appointment of private respondents made on the basis of their position in the panels.