CHANDRA BHUSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.1999, contained in Annexure -9 terminating his services, issued by the Regional Education Deputy Director, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, pursuant to the direction in respect of the same issued on 9.12.1998 by the Director, Secondary Education.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being registered with Employment Exchange, his name was forwarded/sponsored by the Employment Exchange. After compliance of necessary formalities, he came to he so appointed on the post of Peon in 1993. The submission, therefore, was that the appointment of the petitioner was not an illegal, backdoor appointment as suggested by the Respondents in their counter affidavit; that calling for names from the Employment Exchange was also an accepted mode of appointment which also finds reflection in the government policy dated 3.12.1980. He relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999 (Ravindra Kumar Tiwary V/s. The State of Bihar and ors.) to submit that the appointment made of a person registered with and sponsored by the Employment Exchange was not illegal. It is next submitted that the case of Rabindra Kumar Tiwary (supra) who was terminated in like manner under the order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 9.12.1998 travelled in appeal at the behest of the State when L.P.A. No. 1512 of 2000 came to be dismissed on 22.11.2000. Special Leave Petition preferred against the same being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6077 of 2000 came to be dismissed on 14.9.2001. The case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1237 of 1999 and analogous cases. The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 7.10.2005 made a clear distinction with regard to those whose names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and relying upon the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary (supra) held that such appointments could not be termed illegal. This order in L.P.A. No. 1237 of 1999 came to be followed again in L.P.A. No. 733 of 2007 by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 7.1.2008. Reliance has also been placed on a Bench decision in CWJC No. 4333 of 2000 which in turn placed reliance upon A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 331 (Arun Tewari & ors. V. Zila Man Savi Shikshak Sangh & ors.) holding that appointment after calling for names from the Employment Exchange may not be the most desirable method of appointments but that such appointment cannot be classified as an illegal appointment. Counsel for the State urged that there had been no advertisement prior to the appointment of the petitioner; that appointment of the petitioner was ab initio void and illegal contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the - Constitution and that it was a backdoor appointment; that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity by a show cause and consideration of his reply. He relied upon an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 4.1.2008 in L.P.A. No. 704 of 2007 and the judgments of this court reported in 2006(1) PLJR 100 (State of Bihar & ors. V. Rajeshwar Bhagat & ors.), 2005(3) PLJR 195 (Ashutosh Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & ors.) and a judgment of the Supreme Court in 2006(2)PLJR 363 (Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. V. Uma Devi & ors.).