(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-State is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P (S) No. 879/2010 dated 13th July, 2011, by which order of termination of service of the petitioner-respondent dated 23rd July, 1992 had been quashed and respondents-appellants had been directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith (within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order obviously by the writ petitioner before the respondents-appellants).
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that total 83 persons were given appointment on 14th September, 1990 but without following the rules and therefore. their services were terminated, vide order dated 23rd July, 1992. Similar writ petitions were filed before this Court, challenging the order of termination dated 23rd July, 1992, one of which was CWJC No. 3740/1993R, which was disposed off by the High Court with permission to writ petitioners to file their representation to the authority concerned. Petitioners of that writ petition submitted their representation, which was rejected. Said rejection order dated 29.4.2003 was challenged in W.P (S) No. 1332/2003. Said writ petition, W.P (S) No. 1332/2003, was allowed, vide order dated 16.7.2008. A few more were; one contempt petition, M.J.C No. 409/ 1994R, was dismissed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court, vide order dated 21st March, 1995. CWJC No. 934/ 1998R and CWJC No. 942/1998R, both of which were dismissed along with CWJC No. 945/1998R, vide order date 17th August, 1999 and another CWJC No. 1128/1998R was dismissed, vide order dated 5th May, 1999. Against dismissal of one of the writ petitions of similar nature, CWJC No. 3818/1999R L.P.A No. 589/2001 was preferred by Santosh Kumar Mandal & Ors., which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30th June, 2003. Yet another writ petition, W.P (S) No. 750/2005, Dayal Prabhu Mandal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., was dismissed on 9th March, 2005. It is submitted that it is true that the appellant-State could not bring this fact to the knowledge of the learned single Judge and therefore, the learned single Judge, following the other decision rendered by the single Benches of this Court, allowed the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent even after a delay of 18 years in filing the writ petition challenging the order of termination of service.
(3.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that in fact, it is wrong to say that the petitioner was appointed without following the rules but only contention of the State was that sanction of the competent authority was not obtained. It is also submitted that total 83 persons were appointed and services of all persons were terminated by the order dated 23rd July, 1992 and the present status is that out of 83 persons, 40 persons are in service they may be by virtue of the order passed by the Officers themselves or by virtue of the order passed by this Court or Patna High Court; however, according to the counsel for the State, only 20 persons have been reinstated. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent further submitted that the learned single Judge relied upon the binding judgment of this Court delivered in the writ petitions, W.P. (S) No. 1332/2003 and W.P. (S) No. 1621/2003. The petitioner-respondent had also placed on record several orders, wherein such applicants-petitioners were granted relief not by only Single Bench but that order was upheld by Division Bench and against the Division Bench order, S.L.P also had been dismissed. The petitioner-respondent placed on record the copies of these orders along with the counter-affidavit. It is submitted that it is a clear case of discrimination for the plain and simple reason that out of the persons, who were appointed by the same method and by the same order and whose services were terminated illegally, 40 persons have been reinstated and are in service and petitioner is being denied the reinstatement. It is also submitted that persons, who approached this Court late, had been denied back- wages and therefore, on account of delay in approaching this Court, at the most back-wages can be denied to the writ petitioner, but reinstatement cannot be denied. It is further submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment upheld by the Supreme Court, also, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.