BINOD KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners in these two writ petitions are in the panel which was finally published on 12th June, 2004 after an advertisement was published in 2001. The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to them.

(2.) IN the year 1975, the State Government issued a circular to all its Officers directing them not to appoint anyone on daily wage basis without specific sanction from the Finance Department of the State. Since thereafter many persons were appointed on daily wage basis. Each of the petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed as such daily wage workers. The petitioners were made to work on daily wage basis every day -365 days to do perennial work. Inasmuch as it was never in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage workers, it must be deemed that the petitioners were appointed after obtaining appropriate sanction of the Finance Department of the State in terms of the 1975 direction of the State Government.

(3.) IN purported compliance of those observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court made in those judgments, in 1993 the State Government came out with a policy contained in a circular stating that whoever have been appointed prior to August, 1995 as daily wage workers and had been continuously working as such upto August, 1985 would be considered for appointment in permanent post. Since then the mockery is going on. In purported compliance of the said decision of the Government, Officers of the Government are publishing advertisements from time to time, inviting applications from those persons, who have been so appointed, so that they could be empanelled and given appointment to the vacant posts. None of these advertisements materialized in giving any appointment, far lass, appointments to those, who had been working in perennial posts as daily wage workers prior to August, 1985. The last of such advertisements for the District in question was published in 2001. On the basis of such advertisement, on 12th June, 2004, a list was prepared. There is no dispute that in the list so prepared the petitioners were included. Thereupon, no appointments were given to the petitioners and hence these writ petitions.