KALAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these 16 matters have been heard together because they involve common questions of law and facts. Except the matter in LPA No. 644 of 2006 all other matters have been admitted for hearing pursuant to an order of remand passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5845 of 2004 and other analogous appeals. By that order the judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals of the employees was set aside only on the ground that one of the learned Judges who decided the appeals had also heard and decided some of the writ petitions of some of the appellants. The Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the matters to this Court for hearing and disposal by a Bench of Judges who had not dealt with the concerned writ petitions sitting singly. Thereafter, those matters were admitted for hearing by an order dated 7.11.2006 in view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 101) and in the case of Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University & Ors. (AIR 1998 SC 3261) [: 1999(1) PLJR (SC) 30].

(2.) THE impugned orders and the admitted facts in these matters disclose that writ petitioners/ the employees were appointed to the regular post of Constable in police service under the State of Bihar on so called special grounds like showing bravery in helping the police etc. without following the mode of appointment prescribed in the police manual and without any advertisement inviting applications from the general public eligible for post of Constable or even from those who may be having similar special claims of so called bravery and heroism. The ground for termination of services of the petitioners/ employees is common to the effect that their appointments were made in total disregard of prescribed procedure for appointment to such post and in teeth of constitutional mandate of equality in matters of public appointment, in most of the matters relevant facts were obtained from the employees through show cause notice and in few of the matters only such as in LPA No. 426/2003 relating to 7 employees, some of the appellants in LPA No. 425 of 2003, 2 of the appellants out of 6 in LPA No. 401/2003, LPA No. 418/2003, LPA No. 427/2003, LPA No. 431/2003, LPA No. 419 of 2003 and some of the appellants in LPA No. 1189/2003, a stand has been taken that the concerned employees were not issued with any show cause notice before termination of their services.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant, Hemkant Jha of LPA No. 625 of 2003 a further submission was made that before his termination in the year 2002 he had completed 18 years and 10 months of service whereas other employees had completed at best, 6 years and few months or lesser period of service and, therefore, his termination should be quashed on ground of equity and hardship. On his behalf it has been highlighted that uncontroverted statements in paragraph 5 of the writ petition show that petitioner was appointed long back in 1984 on the special ground that his brother, a constable was grievously injured in 1984 in an accidental firing by a DIG of Police in an inebriated state when he was on duty in evening hours in a camp organized at Rajgir for holding a shooting competition. 1t was also shown that this petitioner/ appellant was confirmed after three years and earned several awards/appreciations and now he is not in the age group where he can apply for any job under the State. It was submitted that because of injury to the brother of the petitioner the family was entitled to compensation or damages which was substituted by the highest authority of the Police department, the DGP, with job of constable to this appellant, Hemkant Jha. Therefore, depriving him of that service would amount to a fraud which should be prevented by quashing the impugned. order or else he should be suitably compensated by the State which may realize the amount of compensation from the concerned officials of the Police department responsible for wrong/ illegal recruitment of this appellant, if so advised.