L.P.A. No. 483 of 2008, I.A. No. 3720 of 2008, L.P.A. No. 387 of 2008 and I.A. No. 647 of 2009. Case: The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Amir Lal Paswan and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | L.P.A. No. 483 of 2008, I.A. No. 3720 of 2008, L.P.A. No. 387 of 2008 and I.A. No. 647 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ramit Satender, J.C. to G.A. and Rajneesh Vardhan, J.C. to G.A. |
| Judges | Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 |
| Judgement Date | September 03, 2015 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Order:
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.
-
These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 6354 of 2002 dated 25th June, 2008, whereby, the petition preferred by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the order of termination of the services of respondent No. 1 was quashed and set aside. Against this judgment and order, the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand have preferred these Letters Patent Appeals.
-
Learned counsels appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was appointed by the Rehabilitation Officer, who had no authority to appoint, on the post of "Chainman". This was an illegal appointment and, hence, after giving an adequate opportunity to represent the case by the original petitioner, his services were terminated vide order dated 5th June, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 387 of 2008). It is further submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants that this type of appointment is back door appointment and, therefore, services cannot be regularized by the State. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition mainly for the reason that in a similarly situated case, Hon'ble the Patna High Court had allowed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6586 of 1998 vide order dated 11th January, 2000 and, therefore, the termination order passed by the appellants dated 5th June, 1998 was quashed and set aside, but, the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6586 of 1998 dated 11th January, 2000 was quashed and set aside in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000 and in other allied Letters Patent Appeals by the Division Bench of Hon'ble the Patna High Court vide order dated 29th January, 2003. The said decision is at Annexure-2 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 387 of 2008 and, hence also, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6354 of 2002 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants have relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 and submitted that those who are illegally appointed, they are back door employees and, therefore, their services ought to be terminated.
-
When the matters are called out, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 1.
-
Having heard learned counsels for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6354 of 2002 dated 25th June, 2008 mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) Respondent No. 1 was appointed on the post of "Chainman" by the Rehabilitation Officer vide order dated 26th July, 1986. This officer had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial