SUBHASH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner's prayer is for quashing of the Order, contained in Memo No. 2895, dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby the Petitioner Subhash Prasad has been removed from his service. Further prayer of the Petitioner, is for a direction for his reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits.

(3.) Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed initially by the Civil Surgeon, *Ed.-Reported in 2006 (2) PUR (SC) 363. Gopalganj against the sanctioned vacant post in the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1,200/-on temporary basis, vide order, contained in Memo No. 1838, dated 13.12.1989. Petitioner gave his joining, and it was accepted. Subsequently, he was also sent for training. In the year 2001, the then Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj restrained the Petitioner from discharging his duties and show-cause notice was issued, asking him to show the legality of his appointment. This order was challenged by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8852 of 2001. The Writ Application was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. As directed in the Writ Application, the Petitioner gave his joining, which was accepted and again he started working on the post. However, the has sales of the Petitioner did not come to an end. The Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj, again vide Memo No. 50(C), dated 11.2.2003, issued another show-cause to the Petitioner. Despite submission of show-cause by the Petitioner, he was terminated vide order, dated 26.2.2003. This order was also challenged by the Petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 2003, which was allowed vide another Order dated 8.9.2003, whereby several cases were disposed of. The termination order was quashed. However, the Respondents had liberty to make enquiry with regard to such appointments, which were forged and illegal. So far irregular appointments were concerned, there was a direction to consider for its regularization. Several LPAs were preferred by the State against orders passed in similar Writ Application. All these appeals were heard analogous and a direction was issued "to the State Government for constituting a Committee of Five-Men, which will examine each case individually after giving opportunity to employees, and will consider their case in the light of Apex Court's decision (State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi*).