AMARESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF ELIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner by this writ petition prays for a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned order contained in memo No. 754 dated 21 -9 -96 (Annexure -12), whereby the services of the petitioner as Milk Recorder in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, has been terminated with effect from the date of the order, and for the consequential reliefs,

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that appointment of the petitioner at the very inception was pursuant to an advertisement pasted on the Notice Board of the local office in Ranchi. After the Selection Process was undergone, he was appointed by order dated 16 -3 -93 (Annexure -1), in the Frozen Seman Bank Project, Ranchi, for the period of six months. By the letter contained in memo No. 12960 dated 8 -10 -93 (Annexure -3), the petitioner's services were extended in view of the requirements of the department until he faced the Subordinate Selection Board, Bihar, Patna. He was thereafter transferred like any other regular employee by order dated 14 -3 -94 (Annexure -4). He also placed reliance on Paragraphs -7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition to establish that like any other regular employee of the department, his Provident Fund VC. was opened, he was subjected to the test for Noting and Drafting and his Service Book was also opened. He further submitted that having worked for three and a half years, it was unreasonable on the part of the respondent -authorities to terminate his services in the manner as has been done by Annexure -12

(3.) Mr. R.K. Marathia, learned Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner was appointed without any advertisement through newspapers. He was surreptitiously appointed on ad hoc -basis by the local authorities and he sneaked his way into the department without undergoing the selection process, by order dated 16 -3 -93 (Annexure -1]. He further submits that had he been regularly appointed, he would not have been appointed for a period of six months, nor he would have later on been called upon to face the regxilar selection process before the Subordinate Selection Board. Insofar as the averments made in Paragraphs -7, 8 and 9 are concerned, he submitted that after having sneaked his way into the department, the petitioner had manoeuvred to achieve the trappings of a regular employee. He further submitted that the petitioner was set ?d with show -cause notice dated 30 -7 -96 (Annexure -10), and the petitioner had shown cause by his letter dated 6 -8 -96 (Annexure -11). After full consideration of the cause shown by him. the impugned order dated 21 -9 -96 (Annexure -12) was passed, terminating the services of the petitioner forthwith,