BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the cases, as common question is involved and similar orders of termination are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner, Birendra Prasad Singh (of C.W.J.C. no. 5692/98) was initially appointed as peon on provisional basis for six months by order dated 31.3.1983 passed by Rehabilitation Of -ficer -cum - Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagmati Project, Sitamarhi, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department of the State of Bihar. Subsequently, he was transferred by Director, Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition, Irrigation vide order dated 31.5.1984 where in after on the recommendation of the establishment committee, he was appointed as adhoc basis to the post of Amin vide order dated 20.12.1988 passed by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation. So far as petitioner -Pawan Kumar Lal Karna and 12 other petitioners (of C.W.J.C. no. 5964/98) are concerned, they were appointed on 9.2.1985 and 31.3.1989. While petitioner -Suresh Rajwar, Kailash Chaudhary, Bimlesh Singh, Dhaneshwar Singh, Sudhir Kr. Singh and Pawan Kr. Lal Karn were appointed on 9.2.1985, the rest of the petitioners, Bharat Kr. Rai, Deo Kumar Singh, Anil Kr. Singh, Umesh Singh, Suresh Pd. Singh, Devendra Pd. Srivastava were appointed on 31.3.1989. Their appointments were made against class -IV posts of chain man, treasure guard, Amin etc. The orders of appointment were issued by the Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Darbhanga. While the petitioners were functioning, they were noticed as to why their services be not terminated, having appointed illegally. The main ground shown therein was that the special Land Acquisition Officer, who appointed the petitioners, had no jurisdiction to make appointment against the posts. On receipt of such reply, some of the petitioners replied where in after the impugned orders were issued terminating the services of petitioners. By Memo no. 579 dated 5.6.1998, the services of petitioner -Birendra Prasad Singh was terminated. On the other hand, the services of other petitioner were also terminated by common order dated 1.6.1998. In both the orders the sole ground shown to declare the appointments of petitioners as illegal is that the authority, who appointed them, had no jurisdiction. The petitioners enclosed a decision of the State contained in letter no. 53 dated 18.2.1978. By the said letter, the officers of the Irrigation Department were delegated with the power to make appointment against Class -Ill & IV posts. Power for appointment of Grade -Ill & IV employees in the establishment of individual office against sanctioned post was delegated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the department. Refering the aforesaid delegation of power, petitioners have taken plea that the authority, who appointed them, had jurisdiction to make such appointment.

(3.) THIS Court vide earlier order asked the counsel for the State to file further affidavit on the question as to whether there were two offices/establishment of Rehabilitation Officer -cum -Special Land Acquisition Officer or not. In pursuance of Court 's order, a supplementary counter -affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. no. 5692/98. Therein, it is stated that the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagmati Project is completely independent and separate establishment which was transferred to Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project no. 1, Chaibasa under notification no. 4869 dated 5.7.1983. Reference of one or other letter issued in between 1989 -91 have been made at para -3 to the said affidavit to show that the office of rehabilitation officers is an independent and separate establishment.