UMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these three writ applications, common questions are involved and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Essentially the question involved in these writ applications is as to whether the posts held by the petitioners had been abolished in accordance with law and secondly whether the Board which decided to abolish those posts were validly constituted.

(2.) I shall take the facts from CWJC. 4039/88. The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar Homeopathy Chikitsha Board, respondent No. 3 herein which is a body corporate established under the Bihar Development of Homeopathy System of Medicine Act, 1953 (Bihar Act 24 of 1953) (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The Act provides for the constitution of a Board in accordance with Section 3 thereof. The Board has been empowered to appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It is, however, the State Government which appoint a Registrar who shall be the Secretary of the Board. The provision to Sub-section (3} of Section 19 provides that the number and designation of such Officers and servants appointed by the Board and their salaries and allowances shall be subject to the previous approval of the State Government. According to the petitioner, the post of Homeopathy Chikitshato was approved by the Government by order dated 2941-1972. An advertisement had been issued for filling up the post of Homeopathy Chikitshak on 14-12-1982, which is Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner and others had applied in response to the said advertisement. Ultimately the petitioner was selected to be appointed as Homeopathy Chikitshak on temporary basis and ho was so appointed by the Board on 4th March, 1983.

(3.) ULTIMATELY, by order issued under the signature of the Registrar of the Board dated 2342-1985, Annexure-6, the appointment of the petitioner was regularised in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee constituted by the Board at its meeting held on 25-9-84. It is noteworthy that the letter of appointment does not refer to the appointment being made by the Board itself. This is relevant because there was considerable controversy that the recommendation of the Committee was never placed before the Board for is approval and the order regularising the services of the petitioner, Annexure-6 was issued without reference to the Board.