ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim that they were appointed in 1987 as Milk RecORDER :, Cattle Field Assistant and other such posts in the department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar. It is not disputed that the engagement was on daily wage basis, but the petitioners contend that they have been working against the said posts for the last ten years, and at one point of time an ORDER :was passed to the effect that their services be regularised. The grievance of the petitioners is that when an enquiry was made by the Director, Animal Husbandry, as to how these appointments were made at different levels, the concerned authority terminated the engagement of the petitioners, who were engaged in the district of Bhojpur, saying that they were no more required.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that these appointments were not made in accordance with law as the vacancies were never notified, nor was there any selection process to assess the relative merit of the candidates. These appointments are wholly illegal and invalid, and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should not grant relief to the petitioners.

(3.) THE manner in which the State has been administered in the last few decades leaves much to be desired. Illegalities have been rampant in every field of administration, particularly in the matter of appointment to government service. More persons have been appointed in irregular and illegal manner than in accordance with rules and I can say from my judicial experience that majority of appointments have been made on ad -hoc basis, daily wage basis or some other such basis rather than in a regular manner following the relevant rules. In such cases the first casualty has been Article 16 of the Constitution of India since the posts are not advertised and the candidates not subjected to any fair process of selection.