PRAMOD KUMAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the two petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appointment on the post of Prerak is not an employment in the Government service and, in fact, it is a contractual appointment on a fixed remuneration in a temporary literacy mission scheme which has to continue only till for a very limited period and as such the petitioners had been vested with no right when their engagement was made against two posts of Prerak on a purely contractual basis only till the continuation of scheme. He has also submitted that infact if the terms of advertisement is duly examined in the light of the merit list drawn, it would become clear that the decision to appoint both the petitioners was itself illegal and thus, if such illegality was noticed and found by the controlling district authorities, the suggestion for taking remedial steps by way of removal of the petitioners and engaging Respondents 7 and 8, the two best candidates of the merit list as per the reservation policy in terms of the advertisement, cannot be labelled as dictation.