Patna High Court - Orders
Shiv Kant Jha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 October, 2009
Author: Mridula Mishra
Bench: Mridula Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6575 of 2009
OM PRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.Director-in-Chief, Health Servgices, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3.Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh
Division,Gaya.
4.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna.
5.Incharge Medical Officer,Additional Primary Health Centre,
Barh, Patna.
with
CWJC No.6873 of 2008
MADHU KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7065 of 2009
BANSHIDHAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7070 of 2009
RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7178 of 2009
MANJU DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7198 of 2009
LAL BABU SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
2
with
CWJC No.7229 of 2009
RAM PUKAR ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7246 of 2009
MITHILESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7279 of 2009
DINA NATH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7388 of 2009
ANIL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7463 of 2009
NAGESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7471 of 2009
GANAURI PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7483 of 2009
MANOJ KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7486 of 2009
SHASHI BHUSAN CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7488 of 2009
3
MAHESH PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6592 of 2009
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6633 of 2009
ASHOK KUMAR MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6636 of 2009
SHYAM NARAYAN KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6640 of 2009
BINAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6660 of 2009
RAM JIYAWAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6664 of 2009
RATNESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &O RS
with
CWJC No.6666 of 2009
4
MANOJ KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6675 of 2009
SUBODH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6724 of 2009
KRIT NARAYAN THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6747 of 2009
SAHDEO PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6750 of 2009
UMA KANT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6773 of 2009
ARUN KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6888 of 2009
KAUSHAL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6889 of 2009
5
BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ BIREND
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &O RS
with
CWJC No.6935 of 2009
GIRIDHAR PRASAD KARN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.6954 of 2009
SUBODH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6956 of 2009
DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &O RS
with
CWJC No.6962 of 2009
SHIV NATH RAUT
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &O RS
with
CWJC No.6923 of 2009
SOHAN ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6671 of 2009
ARBIND PRASAD SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6679 of 2009
BIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA
6
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6683 of 2009
DEVENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6686 of 2009
SATYENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6696 of 2009
DHANANJAY KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6708 of 2009
SHIVA SHANKAR SARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6712 of 2009
RAJ KUMAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6752 of 2009
NARENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6769 of 2009
SANATAN KUMAR
Versus
7
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6772 of 2009
BIMAL KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6870 of 2009
RAMASHISH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6907 of 2009
SHIV NATH RAUT
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6918 of 2009
RAUSHAN KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18653 of 2008
AMRESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6784 of 2008
BRAHMDEO YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.16462 of 2007
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
Versus
8
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1564 of 2008
SUDHIRA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1733 of 2008
YUGESHWAR PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1766 of 2008
NATHUNI SAH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2494 of 2008
LAL NARAYAN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3358 of 2008
RANJIT KUMAR THAKUR & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3839 of 2008
PARMA NAND SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4410 of 2008
JAGESHWAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
9
with
CWJC No.4707 of 2008
PRAHLAD KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4847 of 2008
RAJENDRA DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4959 of 2008
JITENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5776 of 2008
MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5918 of 2008
ANIRUDH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6582 of 2008
SATYENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6781 of 2008
TRIYUG SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
10
CWJC No.8333 of 2008
JAI NATH DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8530 of 2008
HARE RAM PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8569 of 2008
NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8829 of 2008
RAJENDRA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9717 of 2008
YOGENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9877 of 2008
BIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.16734 of 2008
DEWASHISH GHOSH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
11
CWJC No.16989 of 2008
SHAMBHU NATH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17234 of 2008
AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17602 of 2008
SUDAMA CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17798 of 2008
RAMRUP PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18326 of 2008
JAGESHWAR DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18910 of 2008
LAL BABU PRASAD YADAV & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.376 of 2009
BAIDYANATH RAM & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
12
CWJC No.3867 of 2009
ANIL KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4216 of 2009
MITHILESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4334 of 2009
MADAN PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18613 of 2008
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH @ ARVIND KR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18857 of 2008
GOPAL PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1652 of 2009
RAM KUNDAL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1434 of 2009
MAHENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1418 of 2009
13
DEONANDAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1132 of 2009
RAJ KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1059 of 2009
MANJU DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1292 of 2008
Kishore Kumar Jha
Versus
The State of Bihar and others
with
CWJC No.2296 of 2008
PURNENDU KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.811 of 2008
RAM KUMAR LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.874 of 2008
RAM PATI MISHRA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1514 of 2008
MUKTINATH PRASAD
14
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1584 of 2008
RABINDRA MISHRA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1650 of 2008
RANJEET KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1762 of 2008
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2108 of 2008
SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2285 of 2008
MRS.PRITI KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.2303 of 2008
INDAR LAL SARKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2754 of 2008
PASHUPATI NATH THAKUR
Versus
15
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2814 of 2008
DUDH NATH SAH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2836 of 2008
YOGENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.2975 of 2008
JAI RAM PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3201 of 2008
BISRAM SAH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3313 of 2008
AJEET KUMAR SRIWASTWA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3437 of 2008
GHAN SHYAM PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3457 of 2008
PARASH LAL SAH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
16
with
CWJC No.3819 of 2008
HARISH CHANDRA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4214 of 2008
RANI KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4270 of 2008
MANINDRA NATH OJHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4513 of 2008
DUDH NATH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5249 of 2008
MADAN MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5866 of 2008
SURAJ KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5902 of 2008
NAGESHWAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
17
CWJC No.6443 of 2008
Jaideo lal Deo
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors
with
CWJC No.6456 of 2008
RAJ BALI PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6463 of 2008
VIJAY PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7063 of 2008
KAPILDEO PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7595 of 2008
DHURANDHAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7963 of 2008
BINOD MISHRA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8118 of 2008
KRISHNA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
18
CWJC No.8137 of 2008
DINESH NANDAN CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8169 of 2008
KANTI PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8356 of 2008
VIJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8366 of 2008
RAJESH KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9942 of 2008
NAWAL KISHORE RAI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.12909 of 2008
SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.13526 of 2008
SATYADEO SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.15233 of 2008
19
ARVIND KUMAR SAH & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.15716 of 2008
SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.16082 of 2008
MUKUND MURARI MANDAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17310 of 2008
DEEP NARAYAN MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17436 of 2008
SATISH CHANDRA JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17448 of 2008
MUNNA KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17494 of 2008
SRI KRISHNA LALL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17709 of 2008
RAJANAND CHOUDHARY
20
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17589 of 2008
ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18811 of 2008
AJAY KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.89 of 2009
SHIV KANT JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.124 of 2009
BEDANAND SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1281 of 2009
SUBODH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1859 of 2009
INDRAPATI JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3502 of 2009
DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS
Versus
21
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3844 of 2009
OM PRAKASH PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6560 of 2009
VIJAY PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.100 of 2009
SANJEEB KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.101 of 2009
KUNDAN PRASAD SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.765 of 2009
KUMARI Rita Verma
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1044 of 2009
RABINDRA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1047 of 2009
SHEELA KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
22
with
CWJC No.1317 of 2009
SURESH PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3231 of 2009
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.620 of 2008
BINOD KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.857 of 2008
PARMANAND MANDAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2182 of 2008
MAKESH SHARMA &ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2394 of 2008
MANNU PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
with
CWJC No.2593 of 2008
UDAY NARAYAN MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
23
CWJC No.2830 of 2008
KRISHNA NAND JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2864 of 2008
ARBIND KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2865 of 2008
DEONANDAN PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3160 of 2008
SAMIDUR RAHMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3584 of 2008
RAMANAND JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3670 of 2008
MOBARAK ANSARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3676 of 2008
SACHCHIDANAND & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
24
CWJC No.3721 of 2008
RAMESH PRASAD SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.3779 of 2008
Sheokant Chaudhary
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3813 of 2008
ARVIND KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.3877 of 2008
BHOLI DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4631 of 2008
BRAJ BHUSHAN TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5044 of 2008
RUDAL MANJHI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5163 of 2008
ARVIND KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5668 of 2008
25
JAINENDRA KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6017 of 2008
RAM NARESH THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.6019 of 2008
RAM BAHADUR KAMAT
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6103 of 2008
PATO DEVI & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6143 of 2008
RAM PRAKASH PASWAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6616 of 2008
MD GYASUDDIN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6616 of 2008
MD.GYASUDDIN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6791 of 2008
26
VIDYA NARAIN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6937 of 2008
SAGUNLATA DEVI & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7522 of 2008
MD.ALAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8109 of 2008
Devendra Rai
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9197 of 2008
BIRENDRA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.11016 of 2008
MD.MASHIUR RAHMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.14788 of 2008
DEV NARAYAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.15334 of 2008
SHAILENDRA MAHTO
27
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17225 of 2008
KRISHNA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.17472 of 2008
RAMESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18235 of 2008
BIPIN BIHARI UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.19024 of 2008
RAM ASHISH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.395 of 2008
MOHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1653 of 2008
UMESH KUMAR RAY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1724 of 2008
RAM PUKAR YADAV
Versus
28
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.2088 of 2008
ARVIND KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2648 of 2008
LAW KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3323 of 2008
MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4592 of 2008
SHIV KUMAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6856 of 2008
JAGDISH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7609 of 2008
BHAGWAN MISHRA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.8493 of 2008
NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
29
with
CWJC No.8581 of 2008
MATHURA NATH CHAMPAI & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.12182 of 2008
BAIDYA NATH KAMAT & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.14973 of 2008
MAHADEO SAH & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.18964 of 2008
BIMAL KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.417 of 2009
KISHOR KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1891 of 2009
UMESHWAR KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6438 of 2009
BAIDYANATH PRASAD YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
30
CWJC No.6522 of 2009
SATYENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6563 of 2009
Jibachh Narayan Yadav
Versus
THE State of Bihar and others
with
CWJC No.6587 of 2009
RAKESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2774 of 2008
MOHAMMAD QAISER IMAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.3699 of 2008
RAMDEO NARAYAN PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2749 of 2008
SAIYAD IMAM ANSARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS
with
CWJC No.4752 of 2008
JAWAHAR LAL BISWAS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
31
CWJC No.5132 of 2008
HIRALAL SHARMA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.10022 of 2008
SONA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.12431 of 2008
KAROO SAO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
with
CWJC No.14286 of 2008
NAURANGI PRASAD GUPTA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.16783 of 2008
ISHWAR CHANDRA RAI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.870 of 2009
SURENDRA MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6642 of 2009
UPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3563 of 2009
32
MUNNA KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7489 of 2009
BADRI PRASAD GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7492 of 2009
PREM CHANDRA PREM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7493 of 2009
RABI SAW & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7500 of 2009
BINAY KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7519 of 2009
SUNAINA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7522 of 2009
ABHAY KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6536 of 2009
ASHOK KUMAR
33
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6549 of 2009
SANJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7613 of 2009
RAJESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7620 of 2009
VIJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7637 of 2009
KAPILDEO RAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7642 of 2009
BHAGYA NARAYAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7645 of 2009
DUNNI LAL DEEPAK & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2440 of 2008
MITHILESH KUMAR
Versus
34
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.10435 of 2008
SANJIV PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.12247 of 2008
KAMESHWAR PRASAD ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4921 of 2008
PRAMOD KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1428 of 2008
OM PRAKASH TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1345 of 2008
RADHA BALLABH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2111 of 2008
PANNA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3368 of 2008
MAHENDRA PRASAD KANDU
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
35
with
CWJC No.5991 of 2008
SUBODH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.11779 of 2008
SATYA BHAMA DEVI @ SAT BHAMA D
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4923 of 2009
KRISHNA KUMAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5016 of 2009
BALDEO PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7630 of 2009
WAKIL PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7669 of 2009
UMESHWAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7739 of 2009
BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
36
CWJC No.7743 of 2009
DUKH HARAN KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7804 of 2009
SHAMBHU NATH THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7896 of 2009
SUKHDEO SIGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7918 of 2009
RAJENDRA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7920 of 2009
MD. SHAMSHUDDIN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7956 of 2009
KRISHNA KUMAR BHARGAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7996 of 2009
SUDHIR KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8004 of 2009
BAIJNATH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8053 of 2009
URMILA DEVI
37
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8110 of 2009
AKHILESHWAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8119 of 2009
RAMDIN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8194 of 2009
SRI MISR KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8225 of 2009
VIJAY THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8244 of 2009
PARWATI DEVI @ PARVATI DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8327 of 2009
RAM SURAT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8359 of 2009
MD. AFROZ AHMAD & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8393 of 2009
UDAY SHANKAR PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
38
CWJC No. 8396 of 2009
SATISH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8490 of 2009
BHUPENDRA NATH SAHAY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8492 of 2009
UPENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8588 of 2009
ABHINAW KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8599 of 2009
NAGENDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7868 of 2009
SHIV NARAYAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7886 of 2009
PRASADI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7887 of 2009
MADAN MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7890 of 2009
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
39
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7892 of 2009
DINDAYAL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 4939 of 2008
MD. RAFIQUE HUSSAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8197 of 2009
VIJAY KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8656 of 2009
RAM SEWAK PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8657 of 2009
SUNITA KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8658 of 2009
JAI GANESH PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8680 of 2009
KAMLESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 4856 of 2008
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
40
CWJC No. 13540 of 2008
SATYA NARAYAN PANDIT
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 13650 of 2008
BIRENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 13688 of 2008
MD. SHAHJADA @ SHAHJADA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7622 of 2009
SUNIL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7790 of 2009
ARUN KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7813 of 2009
BIJAY KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8211 of 2009
SANJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8903 of 2009
LAL BABU MANDAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No.8907 of 2009
LALAN PRASAD
Versus
41
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8908 of 2009
RAM PRASAD RAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8909 of 2009
DHRUB KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8942 of 2009
ASHOK KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8946 of 2009
RAM KARAN RAY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8947 of 2009
BIMAL CHANDRA JHA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8950 of 2009
KAMLESH KUMAR @ KAMLESH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8954 of 2009
DILIP KUMAR PURVLY & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8795 of 2009
UPENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8838 of 2009
42
JITENDRA LAL DEO & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8865 of 2009
MAHESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8866 of 2009
MD. ABDUL MANNAN @ ABDUL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8883 of 2009
NAGENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8861 of 2009
GIRISH KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8862 of 2009
HARI CHARAN BODRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8900 of 2009
SATENDRA KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8901 of 2009
PHULESHWAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8902 of 2009
SHANKAR MISHR & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
43
With
CWJC No. 9177 of 2009
RITA KUMARI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8943 of 2009
AMIT KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8948 of 2009
PRABHAT KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 9126 of 2009
BIRENDRA BAITHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 8794 of 2009
DEVENDRA MALAKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 2945 of 2008
ARUN KUMAR THAKUR & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 4600 of 2008
DHIRANDRA KUMAR THAKUR &
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
With
CWJC No. 7817 of 2009
DULAR CHANDRA GUPTA@DULA CHAND GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No. 8017 of 2009
JANARDAN PRASAD
44
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
5 6.10.2009. Petitioners in all these writ applications are the employees of Health Department. Their services have been terminated on the basis of report submitted by Five Men Committee constituted under the direction of High Court in L.P.A.No.946 of 2003. The report has put the services of the employees in three categories, irregular, illegal, and forged. Petitioners who have been put in either illegal or forged category, are recommended for termination from service.
Facts of almost all the cases disclose that petitioners were appointed long time back right from 1969 to 1987 and thereafter. In some of the cases, appointment of the petitioners were declared illegal on the ground that appointment was made by way of regularization from daily wages employees by an authority who was not competent to make appointment. In some of the cases it has been stated that appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, following the procedure for regular and legal appointment, as such appointments are illegal. In some of the cases, it is stated that appointment letters, on the basis of which petitioners were appointed were not issued from the office of those authorities, who are said to be appointing authority as there is no such entry in register of the concerned office. Appointments made on the basis of such appointment letters have been put in the forged category.
It is essential that background of these cases should be discussed before analyzing the grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the enquiry report/impugned orders and reply submitted by the 45 State to counter the submission made by the petitioners.
Petitioners were directly appointed on Class III posts and Class IV posts and thereafter regularized on their posts. In most of the cases, after their appointments, petitioners continued for more than ten years. They were regularized, their service books were opened and they were made permanent. In some of the cases, petitioners also received benefits of time bound promotion. Subsequently their appointments were questioned by the authorities and enquiries were made. On account of questioning of their appointment and continuation of enquiry, salaries of some of the petitioners were withheld, as such, they approached the High Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing writ applications. They got relief from the High Court and directions were issued for payment of salary, as it had been stopped without any finding recorded against genuineness or legality of their appointment. Petitioners thereafter started getting their salary. The enquiry proceeded and in most of the cases finally termination orders were issued on the ground that on the basis of forged letters appointments were made, appointment letters were issued by an incompetent authority against unsanctioned posts and also that appointments were made without observing the selection process for legal appointment, without advertising the posts, giving proper opportunity to eligible candidates to participate. A number of writ applications were filed challenging the termination orders. Those writ applications were decided by an order passed in C.W.J.C.No.4702 of 2003 and analogus cases. Some of the cases in which termination orders were not quashed Letters Patent Appeals were filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against orders quashing termination orders. Some of the writ applications, which were filed challenging the termination order had remained pending. Finally L.P.As preferred by the State as well as 46 petitioners and pending writ applications, were heard analogus. L.P.A.No.946 of 2003, became the leading case which was heard analogus with several L.P.As. and writ petitions. A marathon arguments were advanced by the petitioners as well as the State. Several questions were raised including the equity as petitioners have continued in their service for several years and in most of the cases their age for any new appointment had expired. Finally all these matters were disposed of without deciding the merit of the case giving direction to the State to decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs- Uma Devi and ors ( 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363). Direction was to find out that which of the cases come in the category of irregular appointments. In case of irregular appointment, steps be taken to regularize services of such irregularly appointed employees as one time measure and so far the cases coming in the category of illegal and forged, no steps is to be taken for their continuation in service. The direction was that in case irregularly appointed employees have worked for ten years or more against a duly sanctioned posts, without covers of orders of courts or tribunal, their services be regularized initiating a process for regularization within six months from the date of judgment. Further direction was to constitute a committee for holding enquiry. In the light of the direction in L.P.A.No.946 of 2003 and analogus cases the State of Bihar, Department of Health constituted five men committee for examining the nature and status of appointments of affected persons. It is pertinent to state here at this juncture that during pendency of the L.P.A. No.946 of 2003 and analogus cases before the High Court, the State government has undertaken similar task to find out the status of appointments of petitioners and similar employees by constituting three men 47 committee. This committee had also submitted report categorizing appointments of affected employees in three categories; illegal, irregular and forged. However, that report was not considered by the L.P.A.Bench and the matters were disposed of for fresh consideration of factual aspect, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors Vrs- Uma Devi (supra). Five men committee had to complete its task within six months from the date of the order, but it was not done and the time was extended by the High Court for further three months. The committee did not complete the enquiry within the extended time, but thereafter no prayer for extension of time was made and the enquiry continued for longer period. During pendency of enquiry, Chairman of the committee was changed. Two of its members abstained from participating in the enquiry and they did not sign the enquiry report. Final report signed by three men committee was submitted as report of five men committee. On the basis of this report, petitioners were either issued termination letters or simply they were restrained from discharging their duty. In some of the cases despite enquiry report, treated their service as illegal or forged, concerned Civil Surgeon treated them as genuinely appointed. In other cases, though petitioners earlier termination order had been quashed by the writ court, they were not allowed to join, on account of pendency of appeal. The situation was that some of the persons who were though directed to be reinstated by the writ court, were not allowed to be reinstated. Some of the persons in the light of writ court's order had been allowed to join, but after submission of the enquiry report, again they were removed from their service. In some of the cases enquiry committee did not come out with any finding or it was not communicated to the petitioners even then they were treated to be illegally appointed and removed from the service, or if earlier 48 working were removed. Petitioners prayer in all these writ applications is for quashing the enquiry report submitted by five men committee and for a direction to reinstate them in their service, from which they were removed after 20 years, 18 years or more of their initial appointment.
The first ground taken by the petitioners for assailing the report submitted by five men committee is that it is not a report of the committee of the five men committee as it has been signed by only three members. It has also been submitted that two of its members abstained themselves from enquiry as in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, it was being conducted. These members were opposed to the manner of enquiry and also refused to sign. Counsels for the petitioners have submitted that they were terminated from their services, on the basis of such a report, which has not been prepared after holding proper enquiry.
In reply to this, counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since out of five members, majority of the members have signed the report, it cannot be a ground for assailing the enquiry report. Counsel appearing for the State has not answered the question as to why the two members refused to participate and what was the difficulty which other two members have faced in signing the report, if at all it was an out come of their joint enquiry. In support of this fact that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner. The petitioners counsel have cited different examples:-
(i) Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.7065 of 2009 has stated that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner, persons including the petitioners were appointed by same authority i.e. Dr. B.N.Jha, Assistant Director, Health Services, Filaria Bihar. Name of persons have been given in 49 paragraph 22 of the writ application. In paragraph 23, it is stated that out of those appointed persons, services of seven persons were held illegal including the petitioners by the enquiry committee, and other persons were put in irregular category, and subsequently reinstated. This shows that there was no fixed yardstick for deciding the cases of appointment. Similarly appointed persons were treated differently. No reply was advanced by the State in this regard.
(ii) In C.W.J.C.No.6750 of 2009, it has been stated that petitioners were terminated from service and one Umesh Kumar Singh, who was also appointed on the same day by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer was retained in service. This order was challenged in C.W.J.C.No.4128 of 2003, which was allowed. However, the petitioners joining was not accepted by the Civil Surgeon. L.P.A. was preferred by the State against the order, passed in the writ application and the five men committee report has been submitted in which the committee has found the case of 91 persons as irregular, 228 persons as illegal and 358 including the petitioners as forged on the ground that no such appointment letters were issued from the concerned office. Other persons, who were appointed with the petitioners namely Umesh kumar Singh is still continuing in service.
(iii) In C.W.J.C.No.1733 of 2008, the petitioner has stated that the enquiry committee has put his appointment in forged category, although during pendency of the L.P.A. 966 of 2003 on the direction of the Division Bench also an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners case was put in irregular category. Whatsoever be the reason behind this change in the report and present categorization, that has not been disclosed. Appointments have been changed from one category to other, for no obvious reasons.
50
(iv) Petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.1576 of 2009 have stated that he was appointed after following due procedure for appointment. Posts were advertised interview was held and posts were also sanctioned. After interview 22 persons were selected and appointed in the same transaction. 21 Persons are still working and the petitioner has been terminated stating that his appointment is illegal.
(v) Petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.2830 of 2008 has stated that he was appointed in 1985, thereafter he was regularized and confirmed. His service book was opened, finding his appointment as genuine. For no reason he was terminated from his service though in different enquiries conducted for this very purpose, it was found genuine. The present enquiry report has put his appointment in the category of illegal appointment. Similar is the statement of petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.9197 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.2008 of 2008 , C.W.J.C.No.16989 of 2008 and C.W.J.C.No.17234 of 2008. It has also been stated that in the counter affidavit of the State, filed in L.P.A. Bench, appointment of petitioners in these writ applications were treated irregular. But in the five men committee report, their services have been put in the category of illegal appointment.
In sum and substance the petitioners have stated that the enquiry has been conducted without looking into any of the records relating to the appointment of the petitioners and without giving any opportunity to them to defend their cases. Enquiry report has been prepared without any application of mind. The enquiry Committee fixed a guideline and thereafter cases have been put in one or other categories. This statement can be substantiated from enquiry report itself as in cases of some of the employees, it has specifically been mentioned, records not placed, even then appointments have been held either illegal or forged.
51
Mr. S.K.Ghosh, A.A.G.II has stated that the difference in categorization of appointments in between the report which was submitted during pendency of the L.P.As. and the enquiry report which has been submitted by the five men committee, is not of much relevance. These two enquiry reports can not and should not be equated or compared for the reason that on earlier occasion, the enquiry report was not submitted in the light of the guidelines mentioned in Uma Devi's case reported decision of Apex Court (supra). The five men committee prepared its report, as per the direction of the Division Bench, in the light of Uma Devi's case, specially the guidelines as mentioned in paragraph 44 of the Apex Court decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka- Vrs- Uma Devi and ors ( 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363. Paragraph- 44 of the judgment is as follows:-
" One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa (supra) R.N.Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagrajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, settled by this Court in the case above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in 52 cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
On consideration of the submission of the rival parties what I find that guidelines which was before the five men committee and the guideline which was fixed by the three men committee during pendency of the case for considering factual aspects of the appointments and to put their services in any of three categories i.e illegal, irregular and forged were more or less sa`me except that in paragraph 44, it has been stated that irregularly appointed persons, if worked for ten years or more, but not under the cover of courts orders or of tribunal, be regularized, as one time measure.
In the present cases most of the petitioners have continued on their posts for more than 15,18 and 20 years. So far ten years of initial service is concerned, they continued without there being any cover of the court's or tribunal's order. Their appointments were questioned after they remained in service for ten years or more. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that before the five men committee or three men committee two different guidelines were there, for reaching to the conclusion, whether services of the appointees are irregular, illegal or forged. In no case appointment of same persons can be treated at one stage as irregular and in the next stage as forged, and if that was done reasons should have been assigned by the authorities for changing their own view.
I find substance in the submission made by the petitioners that five men committee enquiry report has been prepared in a most casual 53 manner, without properly looking into the records and without there having any application of mind. This view is further strengthened by this fact that at the time of hearing of the writ applications, petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.1257 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.3122 of 2008 and C.W.J.C.No.13563 of 2008 made a prayer for withdrawal of their writ applications as they have been re-instated in their service during the pendency of writ applications ignoring five men committee's report. In the report they had been put in the category of illegal/ forged appointee.
The petitioners have also challenged the enquiry report on the ground that it has been prepared in violation of rule of natural justice. Petitioners case is that no individual notice was issued to them. The public notice was also not published for giving information to every one, that on such and such date their cases are going to be considered, so that they could have defended their cases properly. Since valuable right of the petitioner like appointment and their lively hood was going to be considered, it was essential that they should have been noticed.
Mr. S.K.Ghosh placing reliance on the decision in the case of Lalan Kumar Singh and ors- Vrs- The State of Bihar and others reported in (1995(2) P.L.J.R.309), 2009 (5) S.C.C.65 (State of Bihar Vrs- Upendra Narayan Singh and ors), has stated that in a case where the appointment is ab-initio void, there is no requirement of individual notice. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that since the appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the rules framed for appointment and ignoring essential requirements as such appointments were ab-initio illegal. As decided by the Apex Court in such cases individual notice is unwarranted. What is required is simple knowledge of this fact and that was there, to the employees. I find that decision relied upon by the A.A.G.II has 54 no application in the present case as it relates to regularization of daily wagers/ ad-hoc appointees. Paragraphs which have been relied upon, there is no discussion in the specific term relating to an enquiry going on to examine the illegality, genuineness of an appointment after more than 20 years of service. The finding do not disclose whether in such cases order of termination be recorded without assigning any opportunity to such appointees. In one way this is an admission on the part of the State that the petitioners were not noticed properly and enquiry has been conducted behind their back. Right, which has accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of their appointment and continuation for such a long time, in my view, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary and illegal manner. Atleast the petitioners were entitled to have an opportunity to place their individual cases. In case of given opportunity, whatever would have been the result, at least no allegations could have been made of any violation of rule of natural justice, by the petitioners. The allegations, I find to be correct, as such an important and valuable right, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary manner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh representing the cases of petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.2830 of 2008, has stated that the petitioners were appointed in 1985. They were regularized, confirmed and their service books opened. After different intervals enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of petitioners appointment and each time it was found to be genuine. Since the petitioners were regularized in service and worked for more than 18 years, they could not have been terminated without following the procedure as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. An employee once confirmed on his post, could not have been terminated without initiating departmental proceeding. A permanent employees service 55 can only be terminated by following the procedures, laid down in the rules for removing a permanent employee and that procedure must have been followed as accorded within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that since the allegation were made regarding securing appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters, or appointments made without following the procedure for a legal appointment. In such cases termination order could have been issued only after proper enquiry, and not without any notice to the incumbent to defend the charges framed against them.
Petitioner's counsel have placed reliance on two recent judgments reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R.840 (Ram Krishna Dubey Vrs- State of Bihar & others) and 2009 (2) P.L.J.R.869 (State of Bihar through the Secretary, Government of Bihar, in the department of Energy, Sinchai Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna- Vrs- Indra Mohan Roy). Relying upon the decision reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R.840, the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R. 869 has held that "a permanent employee's services can only be terminated by following the procedure laid in Rules for removal of a permanent employees and that procedure must be accorded within Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It has further been held that the allegation that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged appointment letter is not sustainable without holding any enquiry, as such allegation has to be proved in accordance with the rules. Forging of appointment letter is a misconduct and this cannot be assumed without holding proper enquiry.
Counsel appearing for the State has replied this question also in the same manner that when the appointment itself was made in total disregard of constitutional scheme and recruitment rules framed by the State, 56 in such cases protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India can not be made available.
I find that confirmation or regularization of service of an appointee is a confirmation of this fact that the authorities are satisfied regarding legality of initial appointment. Once an employee is confirmed in his service, automatically he gets protection as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution. In case, lateron the authorities are of the opinion that they should again be convinced regarding the genuineness of the appointment, only one mode is opene for them that is to initiate a departmental proceeding, following the procedure as provided under the Service Conditions Rules for termination of service. Since the authorities in all these cases have not adopted the procedure before terminating the service of petitioners and have passed orders of termination without assigning any reason, it cannot be considered as a legal procedure adopted by the authorities. Action of the State and its authorities can not be considered legal.
Mr. Banwari Sharma, counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.6575 of 2009 has submitted that the State and its authorities have wrongly stated that appointments were made on Class IV or Class III posts in violation of the Government Circulars/ guidelines/ rules. At the time when the appointments of most of the petitioners were made the circular issued by the State Personnel and Administrative Reform's Department, contained in Letter no.3/R-1-103/73 (Personnel) 1644 dated 3.12.1980 was in vogue. This related to procedure of appointment in Class IV posts. The department of health, State of Bihar, in consonance with the Personnel Department's letter had issued letter no.05/A(App)20-1/88 Vol-2 574 (Health) dated 26.6.1989, relating to the procedure and requirements to be 57 followed for appointment on Class IV posts. Appointments could have been made, only against sanctioned posts following procedure like, posts be advertised, interview conducted, reservation roster followed and appointment be made by competent authority. At the relevant time the Civil Surgeon or the Regional Deputy Direction were competent authority to make appointment. Petitioners case is that following the procedure they were appointed. Since the counter affidavits have not been filed in each and every cases denying the statement made in the individual writ application as such there is no contradiction to these statements.
The petitioners have also stated that at present there are more than 4000 posts vacant in the department and the L.P.A. Bench had taken notice of this fact. This fact was also admitted by the State in its counter affidavit filed before the L.P.A. Bench. After bifurcation of the State several employees cadre had shifted to Jharkhand State and situation of vacancies has not changed till the date. In this circumstance, the exercise which is being done by the authorities of the Health Department for terminating the service of such employees who have remained in service for more than 15 to 20 years is nothing but inhuman. It has also been stated that while examining the illegality of appointment, it required to be balanced on the plateform of human right. A human, who is an employee, cannot be prosecuted with illegality of his appointment continuously throughout his tenure in his employment, when no action was taken by the authority immediately after such appointments. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of The State of Bihar and ors- Vrs- Shakti Shankar Singh (2009 (3) P.L.J.R., 483.
I find that similar nature of cases filed by the petitioners against same enquiry report have been allowed by this Court quashing the 58 termination order as well as the enquiry report on the ground of discrimination, as persons appointed in same transaction are still continuing in their service, while the petitioners have been terminated on account of categorizing their appointments as illegal and forged.
Another ground for quashing the enquiry report and termination orders issued in case of some writ application is that no reason has been assigned for treating the service of the petitioners as illegal, irregular or forged. The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of State of Bihar- Vrs- Upendra Narayan Singh) reported in 2009(5) S.C.C.65, it has been held that failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are life link in between the decision maker to the controversy and question and the decision and conclusion arrived at. I find that unreported decision of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.4797 of 2009, C.W.J.C.No.4872 of 2009, C.W.J.C.No.5730 of 2009 and C.W.J.C.No.6431 of 2009 are identical to the case of the petitioners similar reliefs were prayed in those writ applications also, there is no reason for not allowing similar relief to these petitioners as in similar circumstances petitioners have also been terminated from their service.
Counsel for the petitioners have further stated that in case of forged appointment, it was incumbent upon the authorities to examine the actual appointment letters and not the dispatch registers. The signature of the authorities should have been verified by handwriting expert, but that has not been done. Appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters is a serious allegation and it should not have been handled so lightly. In support of this contention, the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad- Vrs- State of Bihar & ors (2001(3) P.L.J.R.(S.C.) 187. The Apex court in the similar circumstances has held that 59 in case of appointments on the basis of fake appointments letters, what should have been really examined is letters of appointments and not mere register through which appointment letters were dispatched. If the letters of appointment issued to the appellant was fake one, there was certainly, a cause of disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred. For numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the enquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That enquiry was not done and the Apex Court in these circumstances had set aside the orders of termination and issued a direction to reinstate the petitioners in service.
Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the decision in Uma Devi's case has been the guideline for categorizing petitioners appointment as illegal, and forged and for issuance of orders of termination. The principle decided in this case has been mentioned in paragraph 44 of this decision. In paragraph 45 of Uma Devi's case it has been held that principle settled in earlier decisions, which are running counter to what has been held herein, principle settled in this decision will stand redundant of their status as precedent. Counsel for the State has placed reliance on all these decisions in which principles settled earlier to the decision of Uma Devi's case as such they cannot be considered as a good decisions.
I find that almost all the petitioners were confirmed, absorbed and regularized in their service prior to the impugned enquiry, petitioners had earlier challenged their terminatioin orders and thus termination orders were quashed by this Court against which L.P.A. was preferred by the State. The L.P.A.Bench did not set aside the decisioin of 60 single Judge whereby termination orders were quashed. Simply a direction was issued to conduct an enquiry. Once a judgment is delivered, its effect can be taken away only by a superior forum and that also, if set aside. Admittedly the judgments delivered in the writ application preferred by the petitioners were not quashed and the direction of this Court to reinstate the petitioners still remained there. I also find that the authorities have wrongly applied the reported decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi's case while considering the nature of appointment of the petitioners. They completely overlooked that petitioners cases are not cases of regularization, but for finding out the genuineness of appointments. Case of regularization of a daily wager or ad-hoc appointee cannot be equated with the case of persons whose appointments have been made permanent. In such cases the parameters as provided in Uma Devi's case can not have application. This view has been held and affirmed by two Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 372 and 2008 (1) B.B.C.J.608. The decision reported in 2008 (1) B.B.C.J. 608 also related to termination from service on the ground that appointments were made by forged appointment letter. The Single Judge relying upon the decision of Uma Devi's case had dismissed the writ application. L.P.A. Bench set aside the judgment passed by the single Judge. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is as follows:-
10. The Judgment under appeal also appears to be on the premise as if the case is for considering regularization. The reference to Uma Devi's case (Secretary, State of Karnataka V s Uma Devi (3) and others:
(2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363); and Verma's case State of M.P. and others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma; (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575) are pointer to that. The present case being not a case of claim of regularization but the termination of a permanent employee, in our opinion, both the decisions are not applicable to 61 the present case.
On consideration of submission of the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I find that the impugned enquiry report has been prepared completely in violation of rule of natural justice. The authorities failed to consider that they are conducting enquiry in relation to permanent employees' appointment. For that proper course was to initiate a departmental proceeding and not to decide the nature of their appointment in absence of the employees. The authorities also ignored the relevant government circulars which were in vogue at the time of petitioners respective appointment. While putting the petitioners in the category of forged appointee, the members of the enquiry committee have simply considered the dispatch register and not the signatures under which relevant appointment letters were issued. Signatures of the appointing authorities were not verified.
All these are the reasons for which the impugned enquiry report dated 31.12.2008 is quashed. The writ applications in which termination orders have been issued by the Civil Surgeon or any other authorities, those letters are also quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners on the post, they were working. Their reinstatement will be with effect from the date of their termination with all consequential benefits.
All writ applications are allowed.
(Mridula Mishra,J.) sss