SATYENDRA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was appointed on 17.4.1993 by a committee constituted pursuant to the circular dated 4.7.1987. He joined the post but he was terminated on 10.2.1994. The appellant filed C.W.J. C No. 4780 of 1994 challenging the said termination order dated 10.2.1994, The writ petition was dismissed on 4.7.1995 on the ground that the circular dated 4.7.1987 was superseded vide circular dated 28.10.1991 and as such the committee had no power of appointment. The said order has been challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that, in fact, there was no illegality in appointment. It may be said that there was some irregularity. Obviously, no advertisement was made inviting applications for appointment. It has been pointed out that more than nine persons were appointed. In such a situation, advertisement was necessary. There may be a mode to invite applications by publishing advertisement that name should come through employment exchange but it appears that nothing was done and directly name was called for from the employment exchange. The procedure adopted by the committee, in fact, has denied opportunity to ail the legible candidates for appointment which is the mandate of the Constitution. Learned counsel further pointed out that atleast process of selection was made by a committee and as such the order of termination is not at all legal. The submission, no doubt, appears to be attractive but it has no force because the appellant was appointed by a committee which had no right of appointment.

(3.) ON consideration we find nothing wrong in the order impugned to interfere, thus, the appeal is dismissed.