Patna High Court - Orders
Aspujan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 October, 2012
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15238 of 2012
======================================================
1. Aspujan Singh Son Of Sri Munmun Singh Resident Of Village-
Ghordihi, Police Station- Nokha, District- Sasaram
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director-In-Chief, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna
5. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas At Sasaram
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siyaram Sahi, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mankeshwar Jiwan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-10-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner claims to have been recommended for appointment on 23.6.1981 as a Basic Health Worker. He was issued a show cause notice that his appointment was contrary to law, inter alia without open Advertisement and competitive merit selection leading to termination on 7.6.2003. C.W.J.C. No. 9647 of 2003 filed challenging the same, along with a batch of analogous cases, was referred to a five man committee relying on (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi). The Committee held that the petitioner's appointment was forged. In C.W.J.C. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15238 of 2012 (2) dt.19-10-2012 2/3 No. 5631 of 2008 preferred against the same a cryptic finding of a forged appointment did not meet the approval of the Court even while holding that the appointment being illegal was an entirely different matter. Directions were however given to consider his claims if he was similarly situated as 91 persons regularized on 10.9.2007.
Uma Devi (supra) dealt with the question of regularization/absorption after long years of service and not with termination on grounds of invalidity of the appointment itself. It does not appear to have been the case of the petitioner at any stage of the litigation till today that he was appointed after open advertisement and competitive merit selection. Uma Devi (supra) was subsequently clarified in its application in (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Vs. State of Bihar) and (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ganpathi Chaya Nayak). The subsequent clarification in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari) perhaps has no relevance to the present controversy as the factual foundation for the same has not been laid by the petitioner at any stage till now.
The next question for consideration would be that if regularization has been done of persons invalidly appointed applying the ratio of Uma Devi (supra), in view of the subsequent clarifications made by the Supreme Court can the petitioner derive any advantage from the same. Will a writ lie invoking Article 14 for perpetuating an illegality. The order of 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15238 of 2012 (2) dt.19-10-2012 3/3 appointment may be genuine, it can yet be invalid.
In view of the earlier orders in C.W.J.C. No. 9647 of 2003 (DB) and C.W.J.C. No. 5631 of 2008 (SJ) of the Court, it is considered proper to refer this matter to the Division Bench.
Let one more set of the pleadings be filed by 9th of November, 2012 failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
The records be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate consideration.
P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)