RABINDRA PRATAP PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by Annexure -1, by which in view of direction of this Court in L.P.A. 1511 of 1995 dated 27.6.1996, his services have been terminated by order dated 13.5.2002, as his appointment was made without following any rules and procedures, and as such, the State Government has come to the conclusion that services of the persons whose names were given in Annexure -1 be dispensed with forthwith.

(2.) CONTENTION on behalf of the petitioner is that one Kapileshwar Sharan Jamuar and another came to this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 238 of 1992. A Bench of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ application by its order dated 31 October, 1995 came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner 'sservices were terminated on 31 October, 1991 after they have been working on their respective posts for eight and half years and 12 and half years, respectively. Both the writ petitioners were appointed without any advertisement. They were appointed against class -3 post. Order of appointment of petitioner no. 1 stated that he was appointed for six months only. However, such stipulation was not in appointment letter of the petitioner no. 2. However, in their appointment letters, one fact was clear that when regular selection process was to be conducted, the petitioner must get their appointment confirmed by appearing in a regular selection process, otherwise, their appointments were not to be continued. Petitioner no. 1 services was also terminated but he was again given appointment in the year 1983. In the year 1988 an advertisement was made in daily newspaper "Aaj" for regular selection process. Petitioners ' admitted case was that they did not apply for appointment pursuant to the said advertisement. Prior to terminating their services they were also given show cause notice to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. In the said show cause also they did not state as to why they did not apply pursuant to the advertisement published in the daily newspaper. In view of these facts, the Court found that order of their termination could not be disapproved.

(3.) THE stand of the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner was appointed on a leave vacancy on a sanctioned post in the year 1973. By annexure -2 he was allowed to continue till further orders. Subsequently, his services have been regularised. His order of appointment was not conditional though it has not been denied that he had not been appointed through a selection process, but it has voluntarily been argued that he was not similarly situated as the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 238 of 1992, as he has put in 28 and half years of service. The relief given to the writ petitioner of the earlier case that he can appear before the authority and in case of regular appointment his case be considered for appointment after relaxing the age bar, again holds no good for the present petitioner as virtually he has reached the age of superannuation after putting 28 and half years of service.