ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition relates to appointment to the post of Dafadar in Bit No. 3 of Rohtas Police Station. The petitioner seeks direction to allow him to work on the post.

(2.) The post in question fell vacant on 8.10.86 when the erstwhile Dafadar Nanhak Pandey was removed from service on charges in a departmental proceeding. Birkeshwar Singh, who has been added as respondent No. 5 pursuant to his intervention in this case, was nominated for appointment to the post. The Officer-in-charge, Rohtas Police Station as well as Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sasaram recommended his case. On 20.8.87 vide Order No. 55/87 he was appointed on the post by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. In the meantime, Nanhak Pandey had filed C.W. J.C. No. 3013 of 1987 challenging his removal from service. By an interim order passed on 15.9.87, the operation of the impugned order was stated and Nanhak Pandey was allowed to work as before. In the light of the said order of this Court, Nanhak Pandey was allowed to work; however, salary was also paid to respondent No. 5 with respect to the period, he had worked on the post. On 25.5.90, during the pendency of the said writ petition, Nanhak Pandey died. The petitioner, who is his son, filed application for his substitution in place of his deceased father. Respondent No. 5 filed application for intervention. By order dated 8.2.91, the application for substitution was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous (on the death of Nanhak Patidey). The petitioner however, was allowed to make representation. In stead of making representation on 10.6.91, the petitioner filed the present writ petition which in course of time was admitted on 4.2.93. In the meantime, respondent No, 5 had filed a representation to accept his joining on he post contending that after disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 3013 of 1987, the stay granted in the case stood vacated and his appointment on the post revived, vide order No. 52/91 dated 18.3.91, respondent No. 5 was allowed to join. Pursuant to the said order, he submitted his joining on 24.3.91 and started functioning on the post. However, as salary was not being paid to him, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 794 /93 which was disposed of on 21.5.93 with a direction to file representation. He filed representation which was rejected on 7.5.94. He again approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5312/94. By judgment and order dated 30.6.95, this Court held that he (respondent No. 5) hold a valid appointment and was entitled to salary. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 5169/96 challenging the said order dated 30.6.95 which however, he withdrew oil 19.3.98. It would be useful to quote the said order dated 19.3.98 as follows: After some argument, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this application as the petitioner wants to file an application for review of order dated 30.6.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5312 of 1994. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.

(3.) Shri Dinesh Chandra, learned Counsel for Intervener-respondent No. 5 submitted that the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5312/94 upholding validity of the appointment of respondent No. 5 which was challenged by the petitioner, having become final, no relief can be granted to him. Shri Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was not party to the Writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 5312/94). the order and the findings recorded therein are not binding on him.