SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.5.1999 passed by a learned Judge of this court in CWJC No. 1959 of 1998 at the instance of the appellants. The writ petition was filed challenging the order removing the appellants -petitioners from service as Class III employees in the Health Establishment at Madhubani. The learned Judge declined to interfere with the order of removal holding that the so called appointment of the appellants -petitioners was sham and fraudulent. The learned Judge further pointed out that a large number of persons who were similarly removed from service on the basis of the directions given by this court had also come in different batches, seeking to challenge their removal from service but all those cases were dismissed by this court by different orders passed from time to time. In this regard, the learned Judge observed thus:

(2.) THE facts of this case, that is to say, the manner in which the appointments in question were made, how the irregular appointments came to the notice of the court and how on the directions given by the High Court, the whole matter was examined by the authorities and action was taken for terminating the services of those concerned after giving them due notice and an opportunity of hearing has been dealt with in a number of judgments and orders passed by this court. One can find all the relevant facts in the judgment and order of this court in Ram Lakhan Thakur and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1998(1) P.L.J.R. 844 and in the order dated 24.12.1998 passed in CWJC No. 2093 of 1998 and the order dated 3.5.1999 passed in CWJC No. 1136 of 1998. The order coming under appeal also deals amply with the facts of the case. We, therefore, need not repeat them here. Suffice it to note that this letters patent appeal represents one of the last cases which had their origin in a transaction of sham, illegal and fraudulent appointments on Class III posts in the Health Establishment coming to meet the logical end.

(3.) ON the next occasion Dr. Jha contended that before passing the order of their removal from services., the appellants -petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing and their removal from service was, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. Dealing with this submission, learned single Judge has observed as follows: ''Counsel then contended that the impugned order is violative of the rules of natural justice since opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. From the materials on record, it appears that a committee was constituted to examine the validity of the appointment and 4.2.1998 and 5.2.1998 were fixed for hearing. The petitioners did not turn up before the committee despite notice. This fact has been noticed in the impugned order also. ''