UMESH CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) INITIALLY , this writ application was filed against the show -cause notice given to the petitioner as to why the services of the petitioner should not be terminated.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of a clerk pursuant to an advertisement made in February 1995 and he continued as such till the passing of the order impugned. It is further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, a panel was prepared, where the names of the petitioner and others were included and one of the panelist was Ravindra Kumar Tiwari and at the same time, another panelist was Shivendra Kumar and the aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Tiwari and Shivendra Kumar were subsequently terminated on the same ground, on which the petitioner has been terminated. It is also submitted that aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Tiwari challenged the order of termination before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999 and this Court allowed the writ application and quashed the order of termination vide order, as contained in annexure 14 and the matter ultimately went up to the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6077 of 2001 and the aforesaid S.L.R was dismissed vide order, as contained in annexure 15. It is also stated that co -panelist Shivendra Kumar also approached this Court against the order of termination in C.W.J.C. No. 6468 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 6468 of 2000. was also allowed in view of the order passed by this Court in Ravindra Kumar Tiwari 's case being C.W.J.C. No. 6468 of 2000 vide order, as contained in annexure 16.