ANILKUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by six persons who were, Appointed as Clerks in the Governemnt Women's Polytechnic College at Patna. For the purpose of deciding the exact nature of controversies raised in this writ petition detailed consideration of the facts of this case is not necessary. This , Court, therefore, proposes to consider only those facts which are necessary for deciding the points which are at issue, between the parties in this particular case.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that they were appointed to the posts of Clerk in the said College by the Principal of the Government Womens Polytechnic College on the request of the then Director, Department of Science and Technology. According to the petitioners appointment was necessary on an urgent basis in order to immediately start the initial Sessions of the said College from March, 1985. Be that as it may, the petitioners after their appointment in the year, 1985, on daily wage basis kept on praying for regularisation of their services and the matter was also raised on the floor of the Assembly, as it appears from the averment made in the writ-petition. The petitioner's case is that they were repeatedly assured by the authorities concerned that their services will be regularised. Thereafter, the authorities turned down the petitioners prayer for regularisation of the services and advertisement was inserted in the daily newspaper namely, 'Hindustan Times' for appointment of 52 clerks in different Polytechnic College of Bihar. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to the Goverment assurance the petitioners were regularised by the Director Science and Technology between March, 1987 and June, 1987 on their respective posts after the petitioners were properly interviewed by the interview board. Those orders of regularisation are disclosed at Annexures-8 series. It is specifically mentioned in Annexures-8 series that the services of the petitioners are absolutely on purely temporary basis. Thereafter, on 14th July, 1987 a termination order in so far as the petitioner's services are concerned was issued by the Principal of the College. Even though the petitioner's services were terminated, they were kept on a daily wage basis after termination. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioners before this Court and this Court by a judgment dated 11th October, 1991, rendered in C.W.J.C. No.5706 of 1989 quashed the order of termination dated 14th July, 1987 in respect of the petitioners, inter alia, holding that the said orders 6f termination of the services of the petitioners were passed without complying with the principles of natural justice and as such those orders are bad. The learned Judge while quashing the orders however, gave liberty, to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pursuant to such leave, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 23rd June, 1992 to the petitioners asking them to show cause why their services will not be terminated. In the said show-cause notice certain grounds were mentioned. The petitioners replied to the said show-cause notice purporting to refute the objections taken therein.

(3.) Ultimately by the order dated-20th November, 1992, passed by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, the stand of the petitioners given in the reply to the show cause was accepted and the services of the petitioners were regularised by an order dated 20th November, 1992. Some time after the order for regularisation was passed, notes were prepared and exchanged in the concerned Secretariat and the Minister for further initiation of a showcause proceeding for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioners. In this regard detailed averments have been made in the writ petition from paragraph 34 onwards from such averments it is clear that the matter was repeatedly placed before the Minister concerned for reopening the decision by issuing a notice to the show-cause for the purpose of terminting the services of the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that before initiating a proceeding to show-cause the opinion of the then learned Adovcate-General of the Bihar was obtained and the opinion of the then Advocate-General was against the reopening of the proceedings which already stands concluded. But ignoring the said opinion of the learned Advocate-General attempts were made to terminate the services of the petitioners. Entire noting of the Secretary, dated 7th December, 1993 has been annexed with the writ-petition as Annexure-22. From a perusal of the said noting it appears that a decision for termination of the services of the petitioners was taken and further notice to show-cause was issued on 24th December, 1993, but prior thereto from the noting dated 7th December, 1993 it is clear that the authorities were bent upon to terminate the services of the petitioners. Thereafter, the notice to show cause which was issued on 24th December, 1993 was a mere eye wash. The allegations in the said show-cause, dated 24th December, 1993 are based on similar and abolutely identical facts on the basis of which the previous show-cause notice dated 3rd July, 1992 was issued. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that without any fresh material the subsequent show-casue notice, dated 24th December, 1993 was issued. The petitioners filed their reply to the show-cause on 5th January, 1994. but on that day itself the order of termination against the petitioner was again passed. Against the said order of termination, dated 5th January, 1994 the petitioners filed C.W.J.G No. 44 of 1994. A Division Bench of this court held that the said order of termination was passed on 5th January, 1994 when on that date itself the petitioners submitted their show-cause and as such the Court came to the conclusion that without taking into consideration the reply given by the petitioners to show- cause notice the order of termination was passed. In the particular facts of the case, the learned Judge of the Division Bench while passing the final order, dated 22nd February, 1994 were pleased to observe the