RABINDRA NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-5 which is an office order dated 18-7-2002, by which in view of Screening Committee report services of the petitioners and others, total 13 in number were not found fit for absorption as their appointment letter has been found forged and babricated.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards the fact that the Screening Committee report itself would go to show that the appointment letters of these petitioners which were called for were not produced. Similarly it has been contended that as the appointment letter and service book was not available, the Screening Committee has raised doubt about their appointments. Relying on the said report, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 has been passed. A reply to the counter-affidavit had been filed yesterday in Court to show that service book of all the petitioners had been opened and were available and copies thereof have been brought on record. Annexure-1 series are the appointment letters of the petitioners. These have been brought on record to show the genuineness of their appointment and also to show that they had also been regularised by the competent authority in the year 1980 when other such similarly situated persons were regularised who have been found fit for absorption.

(3.) The aforesaid arguments have been made by the petitioners' Counsel to bring at home the point that had an opportunity been provided to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order, they had satisfied the authorities that their appointment letters were genuine and service book was opened and they had been regularised. It has further been contended that today after more than 22 years of service whether the petitioners can be thrown away only by saying that the appointment letters were not genuine, would not be violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as to whether a personal notice is required to them or not before passing an order which is adverse to them and takes away their vested right as they have been getting their salary for the last 22 years.