Appointments made in violation of the prescribed procedure, as outlined in Sec. 661(b) of the Bihar Police Manual, are impermissible in law.

Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.

1. Four petitioners have joined this writ petition with the prayer to quash the following orders whereby their services as Constables in, the Bihar Police Force have been dispensed with:

i) Order dated 30.4.2002, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, dispensing with the services of petitioner No. 1 (Prem Chandra Jha).

ii) Order dated 30.11.2002, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, dispensing with the services of petitioner No. 2 (Umesh Kumar Verma).

iii) Order dated 30.12.2001, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga, dispensing with the services of petitioner No. 3 (Kumar Raju).

iv) Order dated 10.12.2001, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga, dispensing with the services of petitioner No. 4 (Arun Kumar Jha).

Prayer has also been made to restore their services as Constables with consequential benefits.

2 A brief narration of facts is essential to dispose of this writ petition. The facts with respect to the four petitioners are similar except that those are contained in different orders marked as annexures. The four petitioners had shown acts of bravery in four different occurrences of criminal nature where they had helped in the arrest of accused persons and in containing crime. Impressed by their putative acts of bravery and performance which was by way of social service, the S.P. had, by his separate communications dated 30.6.97 (Annexure 1), 25.9.97 (Annexure 2), 5.3.97 (Annexure 3), and 3.6.97 (Annexure 8), recommended to the State Government for their appointment as Constables. The State Government had acceded to the request leading to their appointments. The appointment letters are not on record. Later on, legality of their appointments were scrutinised, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners, and separate enquiry proceedings were initiated. They participated in the enquiry leading to the impugned orders whereby their services have been terminated, being in violation of the provisions of Sec. 661(b) of the Bihar Police Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual).

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that acts of bravery shown by the petitioners can surely lead to permissible departure from the prescribed procedure for their appointment, because their acts had helped the Government in containing crimes and arrest of notorious criminals. He relies on the order of a learned single Judge of this Court of 27.7.2006 (Annexure 11), passed in CWJC No. 3461 of 2004 (Kamal Chandra Sah V/s. State of Bihar), whereby the order of termination of service in identical situation has been set aside, treating it to be a permissible departure.

3.1) He relies on the following reported judgments of the Supreme Court: (i) - (Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Ors. V/s. The Collector, Thane)

(ii) - (Shridhar V/s. Nagar Palika)

3.2) He next submits that the petitioners are fully qualified to be appointed to the posts of Constables and are now hit by the age bar. He lastly submitted that the person responsible for making illegal appointments will also have to be dismissed for making illegal appointments. He relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (1) BLJ 733 (State of Bihar V/s. S.S. Mullick).

4. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Manual is a subordinate legislation framed in terms of Sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act 1861. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in Rule 661(b) has to be meticulously followed. He relies on the following reported judgments:

(1) 2000(3) PLJR 717 (Sudhir Kumar V/s. State of Bihar)

(ii) 2003(3) PLJR 159 (Ram Narayan Harijan V/s. State of Bihar)

4.1) He next submits that the impugned orders had been passed by the Director General of Police who is not the app