CHIRANJEEV KUMAR DEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a common order dated 08.04.2016, claim for regularisation on the post of Lecturer in A.S. College, Deoghar has been declined by Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education (now re-designated as Higher and Technical Education and Skill Development Department).

(2.) The petitioners by filing these writ petitions have challenged this order inter alia, on the grounds; (i) the impugned order is a cryptic order which does not deal with the factual and legal foundation pleaded by the petitioners for regularisation in service, (ii) it is founded on a wrong factual premise in as much as, it records that the petitioners were not appointed on sanctioned posts, (iii) the qualification for appointment at the time of initial appointment which only can be insisted upon for regularisation has been overlooked, and (iv) appointment of the petitioners has been erroneously labelled as illegal appointment. Description of the petitioners is disclosed in the chart below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(JHAR)5_2017.jpg</IMG>

(3.) All the petitioners were appointed on purely ad hoc basis on a fixed honorarium. The petitioners have pleaded that in response to letter dated 30.04.1985 from the Vice-Chancellor of Bhagalpur University posts in Science Faculty in A.S. College, Deoghar were sanctioned by the Department of Human Resources. On 23.06.1987, the college was inspected and a report was submitted where under a recommendation for five additional posts was made. In the chart appended to the inspection report dated 23.06.1987, name of some of the petitioners find mention. When services of the petitioners and other ad hoc appointees were terminated, they approached the writ Court and finally the matter went to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 11078 of 1989. The Special Leave Petition and batch of writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by an order dated 06.12.1989, which was modified by an order dated 15.01.1990. Pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners resumed their duties on 15.09.1990. Again petitioners' services were terminated on 25.09.1997. A writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 10128 of 1997 was filed by one of the similarly situated appointees. The writ petition was allowed on 10.05.1999 and thereafter, the petitioners also approached the writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3916 of 2000. By an order dated 05.07.2000, writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed and consequently, they were continued in service.