BHAVESH KANT JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court, in Arvind Vijay Bilung V/s. State of Bihar 2001 (2) JLIR 227, and submitted that after bifurcation, the respondent No. 7 could not pass the order of termination of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 also could not follow the said order.

(2.) MR . Shamim Akhtar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.4.1998 (Annexure 5) as to why his services be not terminated as he was appointed by one Shri Ramjee Yadav, the then District Manager, Industries, Dumka in illegal manner. Petitioner filed his show -cause on 4.5.1998 (Annexure 7). By letter dated 26.4.2000 (Annexure 6), petitioner was asked to produce certain documents. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed his reply on 26.5.2000 (Annexure 7/A). In such circumstance, he submitted that the respondent No. 7 was justified in passing the order dated 4.10.2004 (Annexure 1). He further submitted that on receipt of the said order, the matter was examined by the respondent No, 2 and thereafter the services of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 5.11.2004 (Annexure 1/A). He further submitted that petitioner has not shown that he was appointed legally after following the procedure. He lastly submitted that this is a case of illegal and back door appointment, and in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, no illegal appointee, like the petitioner, can be allowed to continue, even if he worked for a long period. 16/5/2014 Page 78

(3.) IT is settled law that an illegal/ back door appointee cannot be allowed to continue, even if he continued for a long period. But it appears that show -cause notices were issued to the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated, as his appointment itself was illegal; the petitioner filed his show -cause prior to bifurcation of the State, but order was passed by respondent No. 7 after bifurcation. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 7 should have sent the records to respondent No. 2. Moreover it does not appear from the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 that he applied his mind.