STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJESHWAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned Government Advocate No. 1 for the appellants, and Mr. Mithilesh Mowar for the respondent. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 5.8.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 80 of 2002 (Rajeshwar Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and Another), whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the order, bearing Memo No. 662, dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-12), whereby the services of the petitioner (respondent herein) as a Class-Ill employee of the State Government, was dispensed with, has been set aside. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings, and shall draw the basic facts from the writ petition except by specific reference to the present appeal.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. According to the writ petitioner (respondent herein), the authorities had issued an advertisement on 30.12.1992 (Annexure-2), inviting applications for appointment to Class-Ill post of Clerk. The petitioner was applicant and after completion of the selection process the authorities prepared the panel of selected candidates marked Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims to be at serial No. 42, and one Shivendra Kumar is at serial No. 51. Office order bearing Memo No. 5133, dated 31.8.1996 (Annexure-6), was issued to the petitioner appointing him to a Class-Ill post. The petitioner was visited with the order dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-12), whereby his services were dispensed with for the reasons assigned therein. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 80 of 2002, which was allowed by order dated 5.8.2005, the said order dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure-12), was set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Aggrieved by the order, the State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) RGM which is dated 31.12.1992. The same on the face of it does not inspire confidence, "3flcT: is wholly unknown in the State of Bihar and in fact has come our way for the very first time. There are, however, indications in the proceedings that the same had really been put up on the notice board in an effort to give publicity to the vacancies. Furthermore, there are clear materials on record that names of candidates were called for from the Employment Exchange. The totality of this part of the matter renders the entire selection process bad in law. Law is well settled that public employment in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same. If the vacancies are given wide publicity, every citizen has access to the same and submit applications for consideration of their cases in accordance with law. If it was at all published in "im-. then the same by itself seems to be a complete act of fraud because the newspaper is completely unknown and may have been created for the purpose of the present case only. Secondly, if the same was put up only on the notice board, then there was no publicity of the vacancies which by itself renders the selection process void ab initio. Furthermore, the notice was at all put up on the notice board is itself doubtful in the present case. Thirdly, there are enough indications on record that names were invited from Employment Exchange. Calling for names from the Employment Exchange has gained enough notoriety that any selection process in such a situation becomes vulnerable. Names of favourites were called for and were accordingly forwarded by the Employment Exchange. To summarise this aspect of the matter, the merit-list does not seem to have been prepared after giving publicity of vacancies. A copy of the merit-list is marked Annexure-3, which neither bears the notification No., date or signature of the authorities. The same on the face of it appears to be apocryphal.