PRITHWI NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order contained in Annexure-'1', services of these petitioners have been terminated on the ground that their appointments were irregular.

(2.) The petitioners were validly appointed by the Respondent No. 3, the appointing authority, and they completed three years of service in Class III and Class IV in various Health Centres. Some of them were already confirmed on the post held by them. Petitioners 1 to 11 are Class III Government Servants, and 12 to 18 are Class IV Government Servants. In pursuance of advertisements issued from time to time, the petitioners submitted their applications and were appointed to different categories of posts in the scale of pay as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application. They continued as such uninterrupted for long three years without any complaints against them. As alleged in the impugned order, it was pointed out by the respondents, that the appointment of these petitioners were not made in consonance with some orders of the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and that formed the basis for termination of the service. As against this, the petitioners have affirmatively asserted that they were validly appointed by a competent authority in pursuance of the advertisement issued from time to time and they continued as such for long three years and some of them had also been confirmed in the post. It is contended that at no stage they were afforded any opportunity to demonstrate that the allegations as such were totally misconcieved. The petitioners were also members of the State Provident Fund and right from the beginning of their appointment the Provident Fund contribution in accordance with the statutory rules are being deducted from them. Their names were also included in the Group Insurance Scheme and necessary contributions are being deducted from each month. They were also granted annual increments in accordance with the service condition.

(3.) It is now stated for the first time in the counter affidavit that the appointments were irregular, on the basis of some enquiry held behind the petitioners' back, to which the petitioners were never made party. In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan had made illegal appointments of these petitioners, who has now retired, and that the Government is taking suitable action against him. A very strange stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the appointing authority, who is vested with the power to appoint Class III and Class IV. employees shall not make such appointment/promotion before two years of his date of retirement without obtaining written prior permission from the Director-in-Chief, Health Services/Health Commissioner and the contention raised is that on such prior permission was obtained in making these appoints by the then Civil Surgeon, Siwan. It is further submitted that after some assembly question by one M. L. A. an enquiry was made and then it revealed that all the appointments made in 1985 by the then Civil Surgeon was made in complete disregard of the rules and procedures prescribed under Annexures 'A' and 'B' of the Counter Affidavit. It has not been specifically stated in the counter Affidavit as to which of the condition or the procedure prescribed under these annexures-'A' and 'B' were not followed. The averment is quite vague and the petitioners were not obliged to file any reply to these vague allegations. As to which statutory provision or procedure prescribed for selection (blurred) such appointments were violated is also not categorically and specifically stated in the counter-Affidavit. Thus, it is obvious that even today in this Court, respondent State was not in a position to point out as to which particular procedure in making such appointments were not followed or as to which particular condition in the matter of such appointments were not followed. The impugned order is silent and the petitioners were kept in dark and were suddenly confronted with the impugned order of termination when they had almost completed more than three years of service in their posts unblemished by any complaints against their services.