NALANI KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders contained in memo No. 211 dated 10.1.2003, Annexure-5 memo No. 1991 dated 12.12.2002, Annexure-6 and memo No. 654 dated 24.3.2001, Annexure-7 issued under the signature of Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Amin on 22.11.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi Annexure-1; petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post of Treasure Guard on 12.9.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Chatiyama, Annexure-2; and petitioner No. 3 was appointed on the post of Amin on 21.11.1989 by Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, Annexure-3 purely on temporary basis with a condition that their services shall be terminated without any notice. Their appointments were approved by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation. They were transferred from one place to another and were paid salary of the post. On 29.9.1998 a notice to show cause and produce relevant documents including the appointment letters was published in the daily newspapers 'Aaj'. The petitioners submitted show cause along with appointment letters. Respondent No. 3 thereafter vide orders Annexures 5, 6 and 7 terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments are illegal as the Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to make appointment. In the writ petition the orders of the Single Bench, L.P.A. and the Supreme Court have been annexed to show that in similar situation relief has been granted by the Court and also that the termination of the services, of petitioners after 1'2 years is bad in law.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that after coming to know about the illegal appointments in the Land Acquisition and the Rehabilitation offices preliminary inquiry was conducted. The. government accordingly directed thorough inquiry by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and after inquiry it was found that appointments have been made illegally and accordingly action was initiated against those officers involved in illegal appointments by lodging FIR against them in which 44 officers were made named accused. The notices were also issued to the illegal appointees including the petitioners through newspapers on 29.9.1998 and also individually through registered post and on consideration of the show cause and the papers submitted by the petitioners their services have been terminated on the ground that no advertisement was published nor their names were called from the Employment Exchange. The appointments were banned vide letter dated 11.6.1986 Annexure-C. The appointments were made in the year 1989 in violation of the said direction. The power vested to the Land Acquisition Officer for temporary appointment was withdrawn vide letter No. 7836 dated 2.12.1983 Annexure-B and, as such at the relevant time in the year 1989 the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to make appointment. The appointments were made ignoring the relevant rules and process of selection, the details of which have been mentioned in the order of termination of the services Annexures 5, 6 and 7. Temporary appointment was made with a condition that their services can be terminated any time without notice to them. They were appointed in exigency of work and once the work is completed they cannot be allowed to continue. The initial appointment itself was illegal and void. Their continuance in service would not legalize initial illegal appointment. Their services have been terminated according to the terms and conditions of the initial appointment. The petitioners were allowed opportunity to show cause against the illegal appointments. The State Government filed L.P. As. against the orders passed by the Single Bench. L.P.A. No. 675/2000 along with 27 L.P.As. were heard analogous and the Division Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Single Bench. The judgment passed in L.P.As. has been annexed as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit.