RAJENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -We have heard counsel for the parties at length, Respondent no. 3, the Vice Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, Nokha, has filed a caveat in the form of a counter-affidavit, to which the petitioners have filed their rejoinder. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of this writ petition by this order.

(2.) The petitioners herein have prayed for the issuance of a writ quashing the letter dated 6th May, 1992 (Aunexure-1) containing a direction to the authorities to terminate all appointments, which have been made illegally without following the procedure established by law. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 21-9-1992 whereby respondent no. 3 has terminated the appointment of the petitioners on the ground that they were illegally made. Those orders are Annexure 1-A to 1-H to the writ petition.

(3.) The facts pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were engaged on 1-10-86 on daily wage basis by respondent no 3, Notified Area Committee, Nokha, as Tax Daroga, Clerk, Safai Jamadar and Peon. Petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 were appointed subsequently with effect from different dates in the years 1986 and 1987. They were all appointed as Safai Mazdoors on daily wages Apparently, these posts were not sanctioned posts, because it is the case of the petitioners that nine posts were sanctioned by the Government by order dated 20th October, 1986. This fact is not disputed by the respondents, and is also apparent from the material on record. The Notified Area Committee, Nokha, met on 6th October, 1988, and resolved to appoint the petitioners against the sanctioned posts on a temporary basis. The resolution passed by the Committee makes an interesting reading. It refer to the fact that the Government had been pleased to sanction nine posts by order dated 20th October, 1986. The persons in the employment of the Committee had made a representation that they be appointed against those trine sanctioned posts. Since the Committee was faced with financial difficulties, it was not necessary to adopt any procedure for making fresh appointment, because if the prescribed procedure was to be followed, it would entail time and expenditure which the Committee was not in a position to bear. In these circumstances, the Committee resolved that from amongst the persons already employed by the Committee, the petitioners and one other may be appointed according to their ability against the posts mentioned against their names on a temporary basis with effect from the date on which the order of the Government sanctioning the posts was received, namely, with effect from 11-11-1986. The effective date from which they were appointed on temporary basis has been shown to be 11-11-1986, because that appears to be the date on which the order of the Government sanctioning the posts was received by the Committee, what is indeed not understandable is the fact that even according to the petitioners, some of them were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1987. Even that be so, it is understandable how they should have been appointed with effect from 11-11-1986 though on temporary basis. The decision of the Committee has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.