BACHCHU NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought permission of this Court to delete the names of private Respondents 4 to 14. He is permitted to do so.

(2.) THE petitioners were serving in the post of Chaukidars (Clause-IV) in the Department of Agriculture and now by the imugned order dated 20th August, 1990 passed by repondent No. 2 their services have been terminated on the sole ground that they were wrongly appointed. In pursuance of the Advertisement issued in the daily newspaper the applications were called for the appointment in the post of Chaukidar in the Department of Agriculture (Plant Protection). THE qualification was Class-VII pass. Accordingly, persons belonging to the reserved category and general category applied for the said post of Chaukidar. THE petitioners were asked to appear in the interview along with the certificates in regard to their date of birth, the certificate showing that they belonged to the reserved category, their registration number in the Employment Exchange and similar other papers. THEy appeared before a duly constituted Selection Committee of which Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection) was the Chairman. After interviewing the candidates including these petitioners, the Selection Committee recommended the petitioners and appointment letters were issued to them on the 25th January, 1990, THEy joined their appointment on different places of posting indicated in their letter of appointment issued to them in January and February, 1990. While they served for nearly seven months, all on a sudden, they were faced with the order of termination, contained in Annexre-'I', issued by Respondent No. 2 on the 20th August, 1990.

(3.) OUR attention has been drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharwan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar , wherein similar principle was laid down and in the said case it was held: