STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the State counsel and the counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. The Single Judge in his order has observed thus: - "In the present case it is not in dispute that the irregularity in appointment was detected as far back as in 1994. itself when for the first time, the petitioners were dismissed but notwithstanding those, the Department re -employed them. The petitioners had nothing to those irregular procedures or infraction of those procedures. They continued in service for over eleven years and now are being told that merely because the officers committed a default in following the procedure, the petitioners had lost a right to continue in employment. In other words, what is said that the State functionary defaulting the private citizen must suffer and not that the citizen must suffer because of his fault. To my mind, such an action is impermissible considering the long period which the petitioners have served. In such a situation, I have no option but to hold that the dismissal of the petitioners cannot be justified in law and, as such, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure -20, which is nothing but a follow up order of Annexure -16, is quashed and it is directed that the petitioners be reinstated but in the facts and circumstances, it would be without the benefit of back wages as between the period of their recent dismissal and their re -employment. It is being pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that it is possible that the posts on which the petitioners had been working itself have since been abolished after their dismissal. If such is a contingency then it goes without saying that the petitioners cannot be reinstated. However, as the dismissal cannot be sustained and at the time of dismissal the posts existed, the authorities would then be required to proceed on the basis that as on the date of abolition of posts, the petitioners would be deemed to be retrenched and they would be dealt accordingly."

(2.) WE find no justifiable reason to take a different view from learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.