RAMSAROVERPRASADSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner pray for quashing of the order of appointment of respondent no. 3, as contained in annexure 1 whereby and thereunder the service of respondent no. 3 has been regularised as Tehsildar within Nalanda Revenue Division. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the final list of the retrenched employees which was prepared on 9.6.1996, as contained in annexure 6 the name of the petitioner was placed at sl. no. 9, whereas the name of respondent no. 3 was at sl no. 20 Still without considering his case the aforementioned order regularising the service of respondent no. 3 has been passed.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 Mr. Shiv Kirti Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 contended that, in fact, the petitioner after his retrenchment got employment else where and is the case of respondent no. 3 the order of his retrenchment was challenged by him in this Court in C W. J. C. no. 849 of 1981 and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ application and quashed the order of retrenchment of respondent no. 3. The judgment is the said case is reported is 1984 PLJR 579. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that m the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the period of service rendered by the petitioner and respondent no. 3 was senior to the petitioner. Thus, according to him there is no illegality is regularising the service of respondent no 3 before the petitioner.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit, aworn on 26.7.94 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner after serving a copy of the J.C. to S. C. I. on the same day. In the said supplementary affidavit it is stated that a Selection Committee consisting of Sri V.R.Raman, Special Officer as its Chairman was constituted for the purpose of consideration of the cases of the retrenched baode of the aforementioned Division for their regulansation and that the said Committee in its meeting dated 22.11.1993 after considering the extraordinary collection and efficiency of work of different employees of the Revenue Division as also considering the respective seniority, recommended the case of the petitioner and others for regular appointment. A true copy of the resolution of the meeting of the said Selection Committee has been annexed an annexure 7 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is stated that despite the said decision having been taken on 22.11.1993 the service of the petitioner has not yet been regularised and that the petitioner continues to be a victim of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination. Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to the said recommendation the respondents authorities are obliged to give regular employment the petitioner.