AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. 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 office order contained in Memo No.1727 Patna, dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby service of the petitioner on the post of Mapak (Amin) has been terminated with immediate effect on the ground that his initial appointment on the said post was illegal/ irregular, and was made dehors the constitutional scheme and by an officer who was not authorized to make such appointment. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the consequential order/ communication dated 07.11.2001 (Annexure-10) issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Jamui, whereby he was communicated about termination of his service by the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure-9). The petitioner has further prayed for a direction for his re-instatement in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was appointed by office order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure-1) issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Daltonganj, Palamau (now in the State of Jharkhand) on the post of Mapak/ Amin for a period of three months only on provisional/ ad-hoc basis. As per the case of the petitioner he joined the aforesaid post of Mapak/ Amin on the same day and continued in service. Subsequently, services of 13 similarly situated employees including that of the petitioner were extended by an office order dated 19.01.1987 (Annexure-2) by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Daltonganj, Palamau and it was further extended till 30.07.1987 by letter dated 21st May, 1987 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that even thereafter his service was extended and he remained in service of the State on the post of Mapak/ Amin. However, on the basis of certain preliminary enquiry conducted by the State authorities and the materials/ information being collected that large number of illegal/ irregular appointments have been made by certain officers, without there being powers vested in them and without following the procedures prescribed under the law, a show cause notice was issued to the large number of employees including the petitioner in the DailyHindi News paper "Aaj" in its Edition dated 29.09.1998 asking them to file their show cause as to why their services be not terminated as their initial entry in the service was illegal/ irregular. Aforesaid show cause notice has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his show cause producing his documents that he was in continuous service of the State for long time after his appointment made in the year 1986. Thereafter, on the basis of enquiry, and examination of documents as also relevant records it was found that initial appointment of the petitioner was made only for a period of three months on the post of Mapak/ Amin by an Officer, who was not authorised to make such appointment, and it was made without following the recruitment procedures prescribed under law.

(3.) It is not in dispute that 2nd / fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.02.2001 (Annexure-7) by the respondent no.2 asking him to show cause as to why his service be not terminated on the grounds indicated in that show cause notice.