SEIKH JABIR ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners were aggrieved by the letter No. 420 dated 22nd March 2003 (Annexure-14) issued by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation through its Managing Director, whereby their services were terminated on the post of Forest Produce Overseers on which they were said to have been working since 1987.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the respondents that in similar matters arising out of the same impugned order dated 22nd March 2003, the writ petition being WPS No. 2021 of 2003 in the case of Prabhunath Dubey & others vs. the State of Jharkhand & others, was decided by this court vide order dated 22nd August 2006 and the impugned order of termination of the said employees out of total 39 employees affected by the common impugned order, was upheld. It is further submitted that thereafter against the said judgment, a letters patent appeal being LPA No. 429 of 2006 preferred by those petitioners was also dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 20th March 2009 by a Division Bench of this court. The aggrieved employees moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 15840 of 2009 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13th April 2011 upholding the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the letters patent court. It is further submitted that the grounds for assailing the impugned order in the said writ petitions were identical to those in the present writ application inter-alia that the Managing Director of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation was not the competent authority to pass the order of dismissal as the Controlling Authority of the petitioners is the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and not the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. Further, the other grounds taken in the present writ application as well as those in the other writ applications referred to herein-above were that the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1987 against the vacant sanctioned post and had continued on the said post for the last 17 long years till the termination of their services. It is further submitted that similar employees as those of the petitioners and the petitioners in WPS No. 2021 of 2003 had also moved this court being aggrieved by the same impugned order in WPS No. 5679 of 2004 (Mahendra Prasad & others vs. the State of Jharkhand & others) and in WPS No. 5695 of 2004 (Md. Yusuf & others vs. the State of Jharkhand & others). It is submitted that this court vide judgment and order dated 30th October 2012 has dismissed the said writ petitions while upholding the impugned order. Relying upon the decision passed by this court in WPS No. 2021 of 2003 which stood upheld till the Apex Court in the said Special Leave Petition (Civil) referred to herein-above, respondents submit that these petitioners are unnecessarily continuing till date on the basis of the interim order dated 22nd November 2006 which was passed in view of the stay granted by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 429 of 2006. Since the said LPA squarely stood decided against the said petitioners, the present writ petitioners should also suffer the same fate and no distinguishing features has been made out on the part of these petitioners and they are aggrieved by the same common impugned order. For the aforesaid purpose, I.A. No. 3279 of 2012 has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation which is being pressed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that in other cases, a plea was taken that the appointments were made pursuant to the advertisement, however the petitioners in the present case do not stake such a claim except vehemently submitting that their appointments were made pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government of Bihar in the year 1987, whereafter petitioners were called for interview and were appointed on the vacant sanctioned post. However, petitioners do not dispute that their initial appointments were for a period of three months as in the case of all similarly situated persons affected by the same common impugned order. Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention submits that where appointments are not illegal or only suffer from some irregularity and appointees have continued against the sanctioned post and also possessed the prescribed qualification, they are entitled to regularization in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi & others, 2006 4 SCC 1] which has been explained and applied in the case of State of Karnataka & others vs. M.L. Kesari & others, 2010 9 SCC 247]. Counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 256 of 2011 rendered in the case of Junior Engineers who continued on ad-hoc basis for 30 long years after their appointments in the year 1981.