SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order contained in Memo No. 560 dated 01.06.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby and whereunder services of about 25 Class III & IV employees including that of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that their initial appointments itself were illegal and were made by an officer, who was not legally authorized to make such appointments. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents for his re-instatement in service, or alternatively, for issuance of a direction to the respondents for regularization of his service, after setting aside the decision of the Inquiry Committee dated 28.12.2010 communicated vide letter dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure-13), whereby the State authorities have refused to take back the petitioner in service, as his initial appointment itself was illegal.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, indisputably, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chainman, a Class-IV post, by an office order dated 09.02.1985 purely on provisional basis only for a period of three months by the Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. As per the case of the petitioner, after joining the aforesaid post of Chainman, his service was extended from time to time by the competent authority and after about 7 years, services of altogether 16 employees including that of the petitioner were terminated by an order contained in Memo No. 2043 dated 06.07.1992 issued by the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition on the ground that their appointments were illegal and irregular. Validity of the aforesaid order dated 06.07.1992 was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5871 of 1992, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 23.12.1992 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby respondent no. 3 was directed to issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks and pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees including the petitioner. Till fresh decision by the respondent no.3, the order dated 06.07.1992 (Annexure-4) was directed to be kept in abeyance.

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid order and direction dated 23.12.1992 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, besides others, and after considering the entire materials, the impugned order dated 1st June, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was passed by the respondent no. 3, declaring the appointment of the petitioner, besides others, to be illegal and having been made by an officer, who was not authorised to make such appointment. Accordingly, his service, besides others, was terminated with immediate effect.