GOPAL PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the part of the order dated 1st June, 1996 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, issued by the respondent No. 3, Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar by which respondent No. 5, District Animal Husbandry Officer, Giridih has been directed to terminate the services of the petitioner after issuing show -cause notice and the order dated 7.9.96 as contained in Annexure 9 by which the respondent No. 4, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Hazaribagh has issued a letter or terminating the services of the petitioner and further for quashing the letter dated 24.7.96 by which the respondent No. 4 has directed the respondent No. 5 not to pay salary to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Statistician by the respondent No. 4, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Hazaribagh, who is the competent authority to appoint persons on Class III posts after calling the names of the persons from the employment exchange aid accordingly, a letter of appointment was issued on 31st December, 1988 for appointment. The petitioner was firstly posted at Bhagalpur and thereafter, he was transferred to Hazaribagh in 1989. It is contended that in 1996 a letter was issued by the Regional Director on 24.7.96 by which the Regional Director has directed the respondent No. 5 not to provide any salary to the petitioner and also not to allow to continue in service. Finally, the services of the petitioner have been terminated, vide letter dated 7.9.96 on the ground that the Regional Director was not competent to appoint any employee in Class III posts.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner in course of argument, brought to my notice the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 13328/92 and 8078/92 and submitted that in similar circumstances, it was held that Regional Director was competent to make appointment and the termination was held illegal. I have gone through the judgment and found that the case before the Division Bench was in respect of appointment in Class IV posts. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed in Class III posts. Moreover, in similar circumstances, I have dismissed one writ application being CWJC No. 3372/97 (R) in terms of the judgment dated 21.4.99.