HRIDAY NARAYAN BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are assailing the order dated 10.05.2000 passed by Chief Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), whereby representation of he petitioners against the cancellation of their appointment was rejected, and are also seeking the writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorbing them on the post of 'Driver' in the Department of Information and Public Relations.

(2.) The facts, inter alia, giving rise to present petition are that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 27.03.1991 while petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 12.12.1990 on purely temporary basis as drivers with the stipulation that their services may be terminated without any prior notice, vide appointment letters, Annexure Nos. 1 and 1/1 respectively. Vide order dated 04.04.1997 (Annexure 5) appointment of the petitioners were cancelled having observed that appointments were granted without following the procedure provided for the appointment and Joint Director was not competent to grant appointment.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1877 of 1997 (R), before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. Writ petition wasdismissed, vide order dated 02.11.1998. An L.P.A. No. 3 of 1999(R) was filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge. However, L.P.A. No. 3 of 1999 (R) was withdrawn by petitionersappellants with liberty to file representation before the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances. Thereafter, petitioners have made representation before the Respondent No. 2 The Chief Director, Information & Public Relations Department, Government of Bihar, and representation of the petitioners was rejected, vide impugned order dated 10.05.2000. In the impugned order, Respondent No. 2 has observed that Joint Director, Public Relations Department has given appointment to the petitioners without following the procedure and Joint Director, Public Relations Department, was not the competent officer to issue the appointment letter. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition.