AMRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because the petitioners in all these five cases are similarly situated Class III and Class IV employees of Bihar Legislative Assembly appointed by the erstwhile Speaker of the Assembly after 1.11.90 in similar fashion, who have been removed from service by a common order dated 15.9.97 and in all the cases common points of law and facts are involved.

(2.) KEEPING in view the facts of the case and the stand of the parties it is deemed necessary that before going into facts involved in these cases a bird's eye view be cast upon the admitted background materials that have culminated into termination of altogether 183 employees of Bihar Legislative Assembly by impugned order dated 15.9.97 including the services of all the petitioners in these five writ applications. Coinciding with convening of a new Bihar Legislative Assembly, one Mr. Gulam Sarwar became the speaker of the Assembly sometime in April, 1990 and continued as such till March 1995. After him the present speaker came to occupy that post in April, 1995. The erstwhile speaker made about 185 appointments to various Class -III and Class IV posts in the Bihar Legislative Assembly between the period 15.6.90 to 1.11.1990. Earlier there was some confusion regarding the aforesaid number of appointments but subsequently the aforesaid number has been ascertained and confirmed to be 185. The said appointments made between 15.6.90 to 1.11.90 were challenged by some persons through a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7995/90 (Harendra Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & others) on various grounds including the ground that the appointments made were without any advertisement and without holding any test as required under the Rules and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ application on 23.12.94 and quashed all the impugned appointments declaring them to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and void ab initio. The said judgment in the case of Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar and others is reported in 1995(1) PLJR 254. Against the aforesaid judgment Bihar Legislative Assembly as well as the affected appointees preferred Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of this Court. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals as well as one writ application bearing no. C.W.J.C. 10142/92 (Vijay Kumar Jha and others vs. The State of Bihar and others) were initially heard by a Division Bench of this Court but in their judgments dated 3rd. April, 1996 the two Hon'ble Judges failed to agree with regard to the fate of letters patent appeals although they were in agreement that C.W.J.C. No. 10142/92 filed by some temporary employees of the Secretariat of Bihar Legislative Assembly after three years of their removal had to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay as well as on the ground that they were temporary employees hence their termination which was not by way of punishment required no enquiry or assigning of any reason. In accordance with Patna High Court Rules the Letters Patent Appeals were finally heard by a 3rd. Hon'ble Judge who by his judgment dated 4.11.1996 reported in 1997(1) PLJR 1, agreed with the judgment given by Mr. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. and accordingly dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals and affirmed the judgment of learned single Judge dated 23.12.94. Against the aforesaid judgment of learned 3rd. Judge some of the appellants preferred special leave petitions being S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22747/96, 22869/96 and 23379/96 which were dismissed by the Apex Court on 2.12.1996.