SADHAN CHANDRA ROY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner was earlier appointed in the year 1989 on ad-hoc basis in the Frozen Semen Bank Project, Ranchi. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner and the similarly situated other employees appointed between the year 1988-92, were terminated. Some of those employees approached the High Court seeking for direction of their appointments, but they were unsuccessful. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court disposed of the matter by directing that though the ad-hoc appointees had no right to claim regularization of their services, but the respondent State was directed to constitute a Selection Committee as per the existing Rules for being re-appointed or regularization of their services. The petitioner and the other similarly situated persons also approached the High Court, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Apex Court and they prayed for the similar relief, which was not be granted by this Court, in view of the fact that it was stated in the earlier order passed by the Apex Court that the case shall not be treated as precedent, as it was decided purely in the facts and in peculiar circumstances of that case. The petitioner and the other similarly situated persons also preferred Civil Appeal No. 2018 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was finally disposed of by order dated 10.4.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, in which, all the aforementioned facts find mentioned.

(3.) By the said order, the respondent State was directed to advertise vacancies in local newspapers having wide circulation, which were to be filled up by direct appointment, giving some preference to those ad-hoc employees who were appointed in the Frozen Semen Bank Project between the year 1988-92 and whose services were terminated in the year 1998, and the directions were given to fill up the existing vacancies only. One interlocutory application also filed in the said Civil Appeal No.2018 of 2006, which was also disposed of by certain directions by order dated 04.05.2011.