Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kaushal Kumar Das vs The State Of Bihar on 12 August, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. _________ OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 30395-30396 OF 2017]
KAUSHAL KUMAR DAS Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Samir Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.
3. The present appeals arise out of the Judgment and order dated 24.09.2014 in LPA No. 1234 of 2011 and order dated 17.07.2017 in Civil Review No. 356 of 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. The facts, to the extent they are relevant for disposal of the present appeals are that the appellant was initially appointed as a Signature Not Verified Non-Medical Assistant on 15.03.1980 and his appointment came to Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.23 13:53:52 IST Reason: be questioned on the ground that the person who has appointed him namely, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Purnea, did not 2 have the power or authority to do so. Vide order dated 05.01.2006, the appellant’s services were terminated.
5. Questioning the order of termination, the appellant filed a writ petition, being CWJC No. 6653 of 2009, before the High Court. Before filing of the writ petition, by virtue of an inquiry conducted by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Purnea, a Report came to be submitted on 08.05.2008, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder :-
“(1) Appointment of Shri Kaushal Das is made by the then Civil Surgeon Dr. S.S. Prasad vide letter No. 637 dated 15.3.80, which is confirmed in view of the department letter No. 450 dated 2.6.83 by Civil Surgeon, Purnea vide letter No. 2271 dated 24.6.92 on 1.4.83.
(2) In [order to the] investigation it is found that Civil Surgeon, Purnea, the time when he has made the appointment, at that time he was the competent officer for making appointment in the post of N.M.Assistant (Leprosy).
(3) Later the then Civil Surgeon, Dr. Sita Ram Chaudhary has discharged Shri Das by saying that this post is state level, and Civil Surgeon is not competent for making appointment on this post, is not correct.”
6. Following the aforesaid Report of the Regional Deputy Director, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 19.03.2010. Consequently, the appellant was reinstated in service on 10.02.2011. In other words, the appellant continued in service from 15.03.1980 to 05.01.2006 initially and thereafter, reinstated on 10.02.2011 and continued in service till his removal on 03.11.2014. 3
7. In the meanwhile, questioning the correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge, the State of Bihar filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the order impugned before us, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by following the decision in State of Bihar v. Madhu Kumari1. The appellant filed the Special Leave Petition and by an order dated 6.11.2017, this Court issued notice and since then, this matter has been pending consideration.
8. On 08.04.2025, we passed an order directing the State Government to file an affidavit indicating whether the Report of the Regional Deputy Director dated 08.05.2008 has been noticed by any authority and also to indicate whether the judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad2 and State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma3 apply to the facts of the present case. The Government has, in compliance of our order, filed an affidavit dated 05.05.2025. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted thus :-
“10. That it is stated and submitted that the case of petitioner is of an illegal appointment because same has been made by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea against State Cadre post of Non Medical Assistant vide order memo No. 637 dated 15/03/1980 without being a competent authority and without following due process of law.
11. That since the petitioner has been appointed against State Cadre post of Non Medical Assistant by the Civil Surgeon, Purnea without jurisdiction, thus petitioner's appointment is 1 LPA No. 200 of 2010 decided on 24.09.2014. 2 (2019) 13 SCC 250.
3 (2019) 14 SCALE 178.4
void-ab-initio. Therefore his case has not been considered independently treating him as a regular government employee.
12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that petitioner has been appointed as Non Medical Assistant under Central Scheme by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea who was not a competent authority to make such appointment thus, the appointment of petitioner is void-ab-initio being illegal appointment and petitioner's case is covered by the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad reported in 2018 INSC 1123 and State of Bihar vs. Devendra Sharma reported in 2019 INSC 1157 because the identical issue of illegal appointment made by the Regional authorities of the Health Department has been decided by this Hon'ble Court by the aforementioned judgment.
16. That it is humbly respectfully stated and submitted that as per direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Patna High Court dated 26/06/2006 in LPA No. 946/2003 (The State of Bihar ors Vs Purnendra Solankit) and other batch cases, the Five Men State Committee scrutinized the validity of the appointment of the several persons in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi.
17. That the State Committee found the appointments of most of persons under illegal and forged category and only 91 appointments were found under irregular category and as per direction of this Hon'ble Court the services of those found in irregular category were regularized.
18. That most humbly and respectfully submitted that although the appointment of petitioner is identical like illegal appointment discussed in the Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma case (supra) but the petitioner’s has not been placed before Five Men Committee and his appointment has not been categorised by the Five Men Committee.”
9. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel, has brought to our notice several recommendations of the High Powered Committee and has submitted that the Committee recommended that cases which were not investigated can be referred to a committee constituted under the Divisional Commissioner for further investigation. Relevant portion of the recommendation of the High Powered Committee is as under:-
5
“(iii) In the course of investigation, the committee found that the relevant records are not available in the field offices due to certain reasons like drowning in flood, arson, theft, lost, confiscated by various government agencies etc. At the same time, it was also felt by the committee that after the year 80, the process of fake illegal appointments in various regional offices of the Health Department had been mafiaised. Also it is to be mentioned that for the full compliance of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, the service of those whose service has been terminated, but not in the list of LPA/out of court case, and the one who is appointed after 180, who is currently working, also has to be investigated.”
10. The High Powered Committee, therefore, concluded that :-
“(iii) The service of the regularized employees should be made available to the same institution from where their service was terminated. If the post is not presently vacant in that institute, the civil surgeon concerned will post him at his own level against the vacant post in his district.
Therefore, with the above proposal, it would be preferable that the cases which have not been investigated so far due to various reasons, In view of the above complexities, it is the request/suggestion of the Committee that consideration can be given to getting such cases investigated by any other agency such as monitoring or by forming a committee under the Divisional Commissioner (Emphasis supplied).”
11. In view of the above, and taking into account the report of the Regional Deputy Director dated 08.05.2008, as well as the recommendations of the High Powered Committee, we direct that the appellant’s case be referred to a committee constituted under the Divisional Commissioner.
12. We have been informed that the appellant would have superannuated in the meanwhile. If so, the only issue for consideration would perhaps relate to determination of retiral benefits. Without expressing any opinion on the issue, we leave it to 6 the Committee to consider the case of the appellant and the Government shall thereafter pass appropriate orders as per law within three months from today.
13. It is further clarified that for implementation of our directions or for challenging the decision of the Government as indicated herein, the appellant may approach the High Court under Article 226, if need be.
14. With the above observations and directions, the appeals stand disposed of.
15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
…………………..……........................J. [ PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA ] ………………........…………..............J. [ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ] New Delhi;
AUGUST 12, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30395-
30396/2017
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-07-2017 in CR No. 356/2014 24-09-2014 in LPA No. 1234/2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna] KAUSHAL KUMAR DAS Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 160286/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 149525/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 109479/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 160285/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 66699/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 12-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Saini, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv.
8UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)