RAM NATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions, the three petitioners challenge the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as passed in Case No. 66 of 2003 (Annexure-1) which was issued pursuant to directions of this Court in CWJC No. 1103 of 2004 which was disposed of on 26.9.2005.

(2.) The facts of the two writ petitions are similar and, as such, have been taken up for final disposal together at this stage itself with consent of parties.

(3.) The sole petitioner in CWJC No. 7555 of 2006 was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in January, 1986. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in CWJC No. 9965 of 2006 were appointed on daily wages in the year, 1981 in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, in the year, 1988-1989, apart from others, services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they were wrongly and illegally appointed. Petitioners challenged the same before this Court and this Court, in the year, 1992-1993, held that the order of termination could not be sustained as it was passed without notice. The termination orders were, thus, set aside and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Petitioners were reinstated on 11.2.1994 with full back wages, as directed by this Court but immediately thereafter, within a month and a half, they were again terminated. It appears that some other persons were also terminated being a group of 73 employees. They preferred appeal before the Secretary, Department of Cooperative who set aside their termination and directed their reinstatement. Petitioners also then approached the Secretary who directed their reinstatement treating them similarly to the earlier batch. It appears that Department filed a review application before the Secretary. The Secretary, without notice to these petitioners, reviewed his earlier order and recalled his order for reinstatement of the petitioners. He remanded the matter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for a fresh consideration. This time, he refused to treat the petitioners similar to those who were also dismissed being about 73 in number. Petitioners challenged this order of the Secretary reviewing his earlier order before this Court. This Court, in writ petitions, directed the Registrar to examine the matter and pass speaking order keeping in view the plea of discrimination. It is obvious that this Court did not interfere with the order of the Secretary by which the Secretary had reviewed his earlier order. Now, by the impugned order, the Registrar has refused to treat the petitioners similar to other 73 persons. This has brought.the petitioners to this Court.