KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties finally.

(2.) BY filing writ petition being WP (S) No. 200 of 2002, the petitioner had challenged Hazaribagh District Order No. 1310 dated 19.9.2001 (Annexure -7) by which his services were terminated on the ground that he was illegally appointed. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.1.2002 by passing the following order: Though the petitioner's appointment was made vide order contained in letter No. 5306 dated 27th September, 1997 because of his bravery, as Constable of Police, but such appointment was not made following any procedure. For the said reason, the respondents have terminated his service, vide letter No. 2705 dated 19th September, 2001, so it requires no interference. However, it will be open to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable, if post is filled up in pursuance of any advertisement, in near future, in accordance with law. While making such appointment, the respondents will also relax the age to the extent the petitioner performed duty, if found over age. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations. Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that after the said order was passed, no advertisement has been made for appointment and, therefore, the petitioner could not apply against that post but, in the meantime, one Awadh Prasad similarly situated had filed writ petition being WP (S) No. 3741 of 2002 which was disposed of on 14.7.2006 reinstating him and, accordingly, he has .been reinstated and, therefore, the petitioner may also be permitted to make representation so that he may also be reinstated in the light of the order passed in the case of Awadh Prasad (supra).

(3.) I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the State. Firstly in view of the said order dated 9.1.2002 passed in WP (S) No. 200 of 2002, this writ petition cannot be entertained only because subsequent order was passed in the case of Awadh Prasad. Secondly, it appears that the Division Bench Judgment of Seema Devi (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. It is clear that the petitioner was appointed illegally without any advertisement/selection process. When such bungling came to the notice show cause notices, were issued to several such illegal appointees including the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner's appointment was illegal. Further the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi : (2006)IILLJ722SC and in paragraph 43: Thus it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee.