RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common order dated 8.11.2006 issued under the signature of the Chief Executive Officer, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya is under challenge in a batch of these six writ applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issues involved for the purpose of adjudication are almost common. As a matter of fact, the facts of the cases are also common for the purpose of deciding the issues involved, with minor variations, which are not of much consequence. These matters have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. CWJC No. 8623 of 2007 has been preferred by Rajesh Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Ajit Kumar whose names figure at serial Nos. 7, 9 and 3 respectively of the impugned order whereas the names of petitioners of CWJC No. 1126 of 2008, i.e. Mohan Kumar Singh and Rajeev Kumar figure at Serial Nos. 4 and 10 of the said order. Similarly, petitioners of CWJC No. 1857 of 2008, i.e., Ramesh Kumar, Raj Kumar Singh, Bal Mukund Sharma, Anwarul Haque and Sanjay Kumar-I figure at Serial Nos. 8, 5, 11, 19 and 6 of the said order. The petitioners of CWJC No. 5778 of 2008 are Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar-II whose name is at Serial Nos. 2 and 14 of the impugned order. Jeetendra Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Niranjan Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Sunil Kumar whose names figure at Serial Nos. 12, 16, 18, 17 and 13 of the said impugned order are petitioners of CWJC No. 10678 of 2008. Manoj Kumar Singh, whose name figures at Serial No. 1 of the impugned order, is petitioner of CWJC No. 14283 of 2007, whose case is slightly different on facts from other petitioners and the court will take note of such facts at appropriate place in the present order.

(2.) Keeping in mind what transpired in course of hearing of all these matters, before dealing with the background in which the impugned order came to be passed, I consider it appropriate to quote the contents of the said order at the very outset. The order is addressed to the petitioners and following is the content of the order:--

(3.) On a careful reading of the impugned one-sentence order as quoted above, it would transpire that by this order the respondents have found the explanations, submitted by these petitioners; in connection with decision of the "Nigam Board" in its meeting dated 9.9.2005, to cancel their appointments, treating such appointments to be illegal because of noncompliance of prescribed procedure and standards for appointment of employees; not satisfactory. It would further transpire from the impugned order that the said decision of "Nigam Board" dated 9.9.05 is based on--