SHIV CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 3.2.2004 (Annexure -22) issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner's services have been terminated on the ground that he was appointed illegally when there was a bar on the appointment and prescribed procedure of appointment was not followed as also the reservation policy was not followed.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the said question is being illegally raised after a lapse of several years and his services have been terminated after about 15 years of his appointment. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as janzeer wahak (chain man) on 31.12.87 by the competent authority. He was asked to join at Khuti. Letter of appointment is Annexure -1 to this writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Deoghar. Though the petitioner's initial appointment was for a certain period, yet the same was extended from time to time along with several other persons. His salary was also regularly paid. By letter dated 18.3.93 (Annexure -3), the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department, Government of Bihar directed all the Special Land Acquisition Officers of the department to submit the relevant information of the persons appointed on ad hoc basis for the purpose of regularisation of their services. From perusal of the letter dated 13.5.94 (Annexure -4), it is evident that there were 540 posts of janjeer wahak (chain man). According to the petitioner, his appointment was made against the sanctioned vacant post by Office Order No. 608, dated 19.3.2001 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. His services have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was made illegally and at the time when there was a ban on appointment. The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P. (S) No. 4700/2001 and by order dated 15.4.2002 this Court had quashed the said order on the ground that the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar had no jurisdiction to terminate the services of the petitioner who is posted as Chain Man in the office of the Special land Acquisition Officer, Middle Irrigation Project, Deoghar, in the State of Jharkhand. However, liberty was given to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand to proceed in the matter and pass an appropriate order. Thereafter, the impugned order i.e. Memo No. 311, dated 3.2.2004 (Annexure -22) has been purportedly passed, by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was made during the period when there was a bar on such appointment and that the appointment letter was issued by the confidential section of the Director without any authority and that the reservation policy was not followed.

(3.) MR . Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexure -22 is cryptic, non -speaking, arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents are raising the question of irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner without any basis after more than a decade of his continuous service. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's initial appointment was made by the competent authority and extensions of his services were allowed by appropriate authorities from time to time. But after a number of years the petitioner's services are being terminated on the ground that no proper procedure was adopted in the appointment of the petitioner and reservation policy was also not followed. Learned counsel submitted that in the similar fact -situations and the termination orders of like persons has been quashed vide Anexures -9, 10, 11 and 13 by the Patna High Court as well as by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that one order passed by the Patna High Court in letters patent appeal has been given as instance for justifying the impugned order but the same has already been assailed in the Supreme Court and the order for maintaining status quo has been passed as far back as on 13.10.2003. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 3.2.2004 is hit by the said order as after 13.10.2003 the order passed in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7233 -7235/2003 and others cases the department has been directed to maintain status quo and in that view also the said termination order is in the teeth of the order of the Supreme Court.