MABESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Extra clerks of the Registration Department of Nalanda district, who are piece-rated employees and were appointed on 30-6-1982, seek quashing of Annexure 1, a letter dated 23-5-1987 by which the services of 45 extra clerks, including the petitioners, have been terminated by the Inspector General of Registration (respondent No. 2) on the ground of non-compliance of the Gove/nment instructions contained in letter No. 355, dated 11-2-1982 (Annexure 7).

(2.) The petitioners are Matriculates. Some of them have passed the Intermediate examination and some are even Graduates. It is contended on the basis of record that the sanctioned strength of extra clerks in the Registration Department of Nalanda district at the material time was 51. The District Registrar, Nalanda (respondent No. 3) having felt the need for falling up the vacancies as the work was in arrears, initiated steps to fill up the vacancies in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Inspector General, Registration, dated 25-2 1950 (Annexure 2). The posts were advertised on 10-5-1982 (vide Annexure-4). The petitioners were routed through the Employment Exchange, and after regular interview, a panel was prepared in accordance with merit on 16-6-1982 by respondent No. 3 (Annexure 5). 45 persons out of the said panel were appointed as extra clerks, of whom 13 belonged to the Scheduled Castes, 16 belonged to backward classes and the rest 16 were from the general category. The petitioners were appointed on 30-6-1982 and they were sent lor training from 18-8-1982. Enquiries as to their appointments were made from the Office of the Inspector General of Registration as far back as on 21-5-1983 (Annexure-9) for ascertainment of the facts leading to the above appointment. It has been asserted that in the subsequent years 1985, 1986 and 1987, the Government made further appointments of extra clerks in, the Registration Department of the district of Nalanda (Annexure-6). As late as 1987 the Government emphasised to continue the appointment of extra clerks in the Registration Department (Annexure-8).

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has been stated that the appointments in the year 1982 of extra clerks were made against the guidelines contained in the Government circular dated 11-2-1982 (Annexure 1) and therefore, the appointments were ab initio void. According to the State, as prior approval of the Inspector General of Registration was not obtained, there was a serious procedural lapse in the said appointments. It has been denied that there was any sanctioned strength of extra clerks or that the extra clerks are Government servants. It is alleged that they are only periodically appointed to clear off the copying arrears. The Government circulars issued in this regard earlier stood superseded by the Department letter No. 355, dated 11-2-1982 (Annexure 7). It has been further averred that the aet of the District Registrar will not bind the State Government as the act of appointment of the petitioners was contrary to the official instructions.