NIROJ KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 2 (Gopniya) dated 20.5.2003 published in a daily Hindi newspaper Prabhat Khabar dated 2.6.2003 (Annexure-21) issued under the signature of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, respondent no. 4, whereunder their services have been sought to be terminated without giving any notice to show cause and without following the rules and procedure.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they have been working on the post of Technical Assistant since April, 1991 i.e. for more than 13-14 years. It is submitted that vide letter no. 11397 dated 31.12.1987, Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department had been empowered to make temporary appointment on ad hoc basis to the post of Technical Assistant in Tribal Region under the Frozen Semen Bank Scheme. The State Government had decided that 50% of the posts of Class-III of Technical Assistant have to be filled up by direct recruitment and rest of 50% shall be filled up through promotion to Class-IV employees of the same Department. It is further submitted that the Establishment Committee was constituted by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, respondent no. 4 consisting of the Assistant Director of Regional Office of Dumka, District Animal Husbandry Officers of Dumka, Deoghar, Godda and Sahebganj. The petitioners were registered with the Employment Exchange. Their names were forwarded to the Office of the Regional Deputy Director and they were asked to appear for an interview. On interview, having been found eligible, they were appointed by office order contained in Memo No. 2160 dated 5.10.1990 issued under the signature of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, respondent no. 4 on temporary basis. The appointment letters of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also contained at Annexures-4 to 7. It is contended that they were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts in the prescribed pay scale of 975-1540/- and were directed to submit their joining before Artificial Insemination Officer of Frozen Semen Bank Scheme at Dumka. After joining, they were sent for training and after successful completion of training, they were posted in different Frozen Semen Bank Centres and they have continued thereafter on the post of Technical Assistant. However, on certain complaints made against appointment of Class-III posts by Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi and Dumka, the enquiry was conducted by the State Government and the appointment of the petitioners was justified as per the report contained at Annexure-8. However, by letter dated 16.4.1996 issued by the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, the respondent no. 4 was asked to give information under what circumstances, the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry at Dumka, respondent no. 4, has made appointment to Class-III posts when the said power had already been withdrawn vide letters dated 21.2.1992 and 28.10.1991. Thereafter, the Director of Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna was directed to take steps for termination of such Class-III employees, who have been appointed by the order of Regional Director after 28.10.1991 and 21.2.1992, Annexure-9. However, no notice or show cause was served upon these petitioners. Thereafter, the Director of Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna was directed to take steps of cancellation of appointment of Technical Assistant, who were appointed directly in contravention of the orders of State Government as Director was only authorized to make the appointment (Annexure-11). Thereafter, writ petition being CWJC No. 5533 of 1998 was preferred by one aggrieved person namely Daya Nand Jha challenging his termination from the post of Technical Assistant. It is submitted that the Patna High Court, vide judgment dated 30.9.1999, held that the Regional Director had power to make appointment prior to 28.10.1991 and therefore, order of termination was quashed, Annexure-12. Similar views had been taken in another writ petition being CWJC No. 5480 of 1998, which was preferred by Arun Kumar Singh & Others. Thereafter, LPA No. 325 of 2000 was preferred by the State Government in which the judgments of the learned single Judge were upheld. However, thereafter the respondent- authorities remained silent for a while and petitioners continued to discharge their function, but it appears that vide order dated 3.5.2001, the Joint Secretary, Animal Husbandry directed the respective Regional Directors, Animal Husbandry to take steps for termination/cancellation of promotion in terms of the order dated 23.10.1998, which was followed by another letter dated 8.11.2001 and as a result of which, the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Godda issued a letter contained in Memo No. 69 dated 25.1.2002 directing the Block Animal Husbandry Officer to issue show cause notice to the persons named therein, who are alleged to have been in service on the basis of illegal appointment. However, vide letter dated 28.1.2002, the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, respondent no. 4, had directed the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dumka, Godda and Sahebganj, not to issue show cause notice as the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Annexure-16. In between, vide letter dated 6.6.2002, the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, directed the Regional Director, Santhal Pargana, Dumka to explain under what circumstances, steps have not been taken for termination/cancellation of such appointment/promotion. The Regional Director, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, in his reply dated 26.6.2002, explained that steps were not taken in view of the Stay Order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the letter dated 23.10.1998 and, therefore, 88 Technical Assistants have been allowed to continue in service.

(3.) However, these petitioners claim that they have never been given any show cause by any competent authority and came to know about the decision vide notification dated 2.6.2003 published in daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, respondent no. 4 that the petitioners have been terminated from service alongwith other Technical Assistants. It is submitted that the names of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear at serial nos. 14, 10, 12 and 15 respectively in the said notification published in the Newspaper, Annexure-21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, relied upon the order passed in SLP Nos. 5342-5343 of 2003 in relation to the termination of the services of the Technical Assistants working in South Chotanagpur Division. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to constitute a committee as per Rules and the persons, whose services are terminated may apply for being reappointment or for regularization of their services in the Department. It is submitted that the Committee was directed to consider the eligibility, suitability, past record as well as the Educational Qualifications of such persons as per the Rules and after giving age relaxation and weightage over outsiders as directed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are also entitled to similar treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similar placed employees, whose services have also been terminated by the same Memo No. 20.5.2003 had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4837 of 2003 Reported in , : 2012 (3) JLJR 388, which was decided on 3.4.2012 by a Bench of this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that detailed directions have been passed for taking steps in the same line in which they have been directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in other case. Para-6 of the judgment dated 3.4.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 4837 of 2003 Reported in , : 2012 (3) JLJR 388 is quoted hereinbelow:--