MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against an order passed by Respondent No. 2, dated 14th of May, 2003 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition) whereby the services of the present petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect without holding any inquiry worth the name. Petitioner was serving as Ayurvedic Compounder in Ayurvedic Dispensary since 21st June, 1986.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has vehemently submitted those who are illegally appointed cannot be continued in service. There is no legal vested right with the petitioner once their appointment is found to be de horse the procedural rules for appointment. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a notice was already given by the respondents to the petitioner why his services ought not to be terminated as he was appointed unauthorisedly at the relevant time. A detailed speaking order has been passed by Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order of termination, dated 14th May, 2003 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition) in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is also vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed for more than one dozen candidates and several of them have approached this Court and almost all writ petitions have been allowed by this Court. The Petitioner is only person who is left out in the list of unfortunate candidates, as mentioned in the termination order. One such writ petition or two such writ petitions are decided by this Court in the year, dated 20th April, 2007 in a Writ Petition (S) No. 4332 of 2003, Writ Petition (S) No. 4391 of 2003. The same impugned order has been quashed, by the aforesaid order passed by this Court in case of other petitioners. Report given by Director, which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of petition was allowed in these two aforesaid petitions. There is a discussion in Paragraph -8 in the aforesaid order passed by this Court about this report. It has been observed by this Court in Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 as under.