SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The pleadings of the parties having been complete this Court finds that the present writ application can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner questions the order impugned at Annexure 12 dated 10.2.1999 by which his Services as a Clerk in the Institution in question have been terminated for reasons of violation of instructions issued from time to time while making his appointment as also that his appointment was not made by the competent authority. It is significant to note here that the impugned order contains the names of seven persons including the petitioner and one Rabindra Kumar Tiwary who stand at serial 2 thereof.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that in pursuance of certain vacancies advertised on the Notice Board of the office of respondent No. 2 applications were invited through the District Employment Exchange. The petitioner in the specified manner duly applied for appointment on the post of Clerk. The Divisional Establishment Committee after considering the applications and candidature of the petitioner appointed him as a Clerk in the Institution on 26.6.1995. The order of appointment specifically recited that in pursuance of the names having been called from the Employment Exchange and the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee the petitioner was being appointed, it is significant to note that the aforesaid Rabindra Kumar Tiwari is also mentioned at serial 2 of the order of appointment along with the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that the appointment was made against the sanctioned post. The Service Book of the petitioner was also opened, he was paid his regular salary and was also admitted to the General Provident Fund Scheme of the employer. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the nature of his appointment nearly three years later on 12.12.1998. Pursuant to his saving submitted reply thereto he was again asked to show cause on 21.1.1999 on the ground that the previous reply submitted by him was not satisfactory. In the meantime the petitioner appeared in the Hindi Notings and Drafting Examination held by the Department and duly qualified therein. It was in this background that the order of termination came to be issued questioning the nature of his appointment as being contrary to law.