SHIVA NARAIN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 12.10.1998 terminating their services on the ground that the appointment itself was illegal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were appointed as Clerks in 1995 under the Integrated Child Development Scheme by the Deputy Director, Welfare, who was competent to make the appointments. They were all registered with the local Employment Exchange which had also forwarded their names for consideration in pursuance of a requisition made. They had also applied in response to a notice board advertisement published by the Deputy Director. The selection was made by the Committee empowered to do so. Pursuant to a show cause, they were terminated on 7.1.1997. In C.W.J.C. No. 1703/97, the termination was set aside as not based on proper application of mind issued in a cyclostyled form with 'fill in the blanks'. If the appointment was in violation of Circulars of the Government, the Court had observed it was a fit case where the erring authority Shri B.P. Choudhary also should have been proceeded with. He was allowed to superannuate and has also passed away with no action taken against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appointments were per se illegal. The counter affidavit specifically denies that any requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange alleging that the requisition dated 28.2.1994 annexed to the writ petition was forged and fabricated. No requisition was ever sent to the Employment Exchange either at Darbhanga or Samastipur. No merit list was prepared after selections, an imperative for fixing seniority of candidates. Varying stands have been taken. At one point of time it stated that requisitions were obtained from the Employment Exchange. In the reply to the show cause notice the petitioners have talked of an "advertisement published", which obviously means a paper publication. The third defence taken is of a notice board advertisement. The conflicting stands taken by the petitioners is per se evidence of an illegal appointment.