BINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 985 of 2002 dismissed the said writ petition.

(3.) THE facts relevant for deciding this appeal are thai the petitioner was appointed for three months on the post of Storekeeper without following the procedure and recruitment rules and also Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The services of Lhe petitioner was extended time to time and ultimately in 1997, petitioner was terminated from service. The 'petitioner challenged the said termination order in CWJC No. 9977 of 1997 and the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court in terms of order dated 5.8.1999 refused to interfere with the order of termination and disposed of the writ petition. In the said judgment/order, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner failed to establish that he was appointed by the competent authority. The learned single Judge in a very categorical terms held that the termination order needs no interference. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation before the authority. It is worth to mention here that the said judgment was not challenged by the petitioner by filing Letters Patent Appeal and the said order attained its finality. However, the petitioner filed a representation but the same was rejected on the ground that he was not appointed by the competent person.