ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.6.2007 terminating his services on a Class IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rules, the Director (Respondent No. 2) was competent to make appointment on Class IV posts. The petitioner was appointed by an officiating Director. He relies upon Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code, Note 2 sub -clause (c) which reads as follows: "(c) An order appointing an officer to hold the current charge of the duties of a post, should in the absence of any specific direction to the contrary, be deemed to clothe the officer with all the powers vested in the full -fledged incumbent of that post, even though he may not get full pay of the post. Such officer should not, however, modify or overrule the orders of the regular incumbent of that post, except in emergency, without obtaining the orders of the next higher authority. Where the appointment to hold current duties of a post involves the exercise of statutory or such other powers conferred on the holder of the post, the appointment shall also be notified in the Gazette."

(3.) THE emphasis is laid on the words "with all the powers vested in the full -fledged incumbent of that post" to submit that the appointment by Incharge Director cannot be said to be illegal. The next submission is that the impugned order itself states that it was being passed in pursuance of 'the directions of the administration '. The order having been passed at the behest of another, without application of mind by the issuing authority, the same was vitiated. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1994(1) BLJ 605 (Asharf Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.).