HARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have questioned the legality/validity of the appointments of 234 persons on various posts by respondent No.2, namely, the Speaker of the Bihar Legislative Assembly in between 15.6.1990 and 1.11.1990 and for quashing the Office Order No.l Accounts 15/90 39, Vidhan Sabha, Patna, dated 14.9.1990 by which respondents Nos. 6 to 10 were appointed as Assistants in the Accounts Section of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assembly') including the letters of appointment of Respondent Nos. 11 to 17, dated 15.11.1990. Copies of he said orders of appointment are made Annexure 2 series to this writ application.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversies and submissions raised on behalf of respective parties, It is necessary to mention some relevant faces and the case of the respective parties on the basis of the pleadings. The petitioners are duly qualified for the posts, which were filled up by respondent No.2 in between the aforesaid period. According to the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, they could not apply for the post of Assistant, Typist, Routine Clerk, Peon etc. in the Bihar Vidhan Sabha nor applications were invited from the prospective candidates through any Employment Exchange. Respondent Nos. 6 to 17 were appointed on 14.9.1990 and 15.9.1990 and he appointment letters were issued accordingly, as per Annexure 2 series, as stated above.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the appointments of 234 persons including respondents 6 to 17 made by respondent No, 2 without making advertisement and/or holding any test, as required under he Rules and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, He further submitted that respondent No.2 completely ignored the provisions of the Rules inasmuch as, without inviting applications from the qualified persons like the petitioners, appointed 234 persons, and, as such, the appointments of the aforesaid persons are wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. learned Counsel further submitted that no notice whatsoever specifying the requisite qualification of the candidates for filling up the aforesaid posts was published anywhere at any point of time by respondents 1 to 5 and no examination for testing the competitive merit of the individual competitors was held before appointing the aforesaid 234 persons. This procedure according to the learned Counsel adopted by respondent No.2 is wholly unknown and contrary to the provisions laid down in the Rules while making such appointments, which has violated the equality Clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and, thus tie appointments of the aforesaid 234 persons including respondents 6 to 17 are as initio void. In this connection, learned Counsel also submitted that earlier 89 persons were appointed on the posts of Assistant, Typist and Routine Clerk by the then Speaker, but such appointments were cancelled by the successor Speaker on the ground that those appointments had been made directly without advertisement and/or without following the procedures prescribed under the Rules. That order of the Speaker cancelling previous appointments was brought under challenge before this High Court in C.WJ.C. No. 7953 of 1989 disposed of on 6.9.1990 wherein, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Speaker of the Assembly that those appointments had been made by the then Speaker without any advertisement. Ultimately, the order of cancellation of the appointments of 89 persons made by his predecessor Speaker was confirmed by this Court. learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, accordingly, submitted that respondent No.2 has adopted the same arbitrary procedure while making appointments under challenge in the present writ application without advertisement and without holding any examination for testing the competitive merit of the individual candidates and, therefore, it was not open for the respondents 2 to 5 to make such appointments without following the procedures prescribed under the Rules. learned Counsel, however, submitted that all the 234 appointments including the appointment of respondents 6 to 17 were made purely on political consideration as the appointees are related to the Officers, employees and the Members of the Assembly. It was further alleged that in exercise of the power under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, a notification was issued by the Assembly wherein it has been categorically stated that the appointment on he posts of Assistant shall be made through the competitive examination, but admittedly in the instant case, no such examination and/or interview was ever held, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also in contravention of the mandatory provisions mentioned in the aforesaid notification which was issued in exercise of power under Rule 4(2) of the Rules (Rule 9 is a mistake for Rule 4(2) of he Rules under which the aforesaid notification was issued by the Assembly). The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners may now be summarised as follows: