SURESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.2008 of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Chapra, terminating his services on the ground that the appointment was not in accordance with law as procedures were not followed including absence of Roster Clearance.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage on 24.3.1986 for a period of six months. On 5.1.1987 he was directed to be continued as a daily wager till further orders. The petitioner represented on 24.6.1988 requesting for a regular appointment on sympathetic grounds claiming tnat he was qualified for the post. On 30.4.1990 the Executive Engineer observing that the petitioner had completed 240 days in service brought him into the work charged establishment. On 9.11.1990 the petitioner, as a working arrangement was again appointed for six months. On 15.6.1993 on the recommendation of a political functionary he was deputed against a vacant post to discharge duties till a regular appointment was made on the post. On 10.11.1993 this appointment made on recommendation was terminated. On 29.6.1994 he was appointed on a vacant post of Typist purely as a working arrangement till a regular appointment was made. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 8652 of 2007 (s/'c1997?) questioning the show cause notice issued to him for termination of his services on the ground that his appointment had been found to be illegal. By dint of an interim order the petitioner continued in service. Reliance was placed on the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1. This Court following the orders of a Division Bench and noticing the one time direction in the case of Uma Devi for regularization of those who had completed ten years in service, directed consideration of his case. It was urged that since the petitioner was appointed on a vacant post and had completed ten years of service the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi .