The court's decision emphasized the importance of addressing the lis involved in each case or at least similar batch of cases instead of disposing of the entire bunch of writ applications in a singular order.

Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Employment Termination - [No specific act-section referenced] - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeals and proceeded to take up the appeals for final disposal at motion stage. The court nullified the directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and appointed a one-man committee to look into the legality of the appointments and continuance in service of the writ petitioners.
Fact of the Case:

The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeals and proceeded to take up the appeals for final disposal at motion stage. The court nullified the directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and appointed a one-man committee to look into the legality of the appointments and continuance in service of the writ petitioners.
Finding of the Court:

The court found it appropriate to dispose of the appeals and not to wait for the others appeal to be filed and listed. The court nullified the directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and appointed a one-man committee to look into the legality of the appointments and continuance in service of the writ petitioners.
Issues: The pivotal grievance of the State-appellants was that it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to address the lis involved in each case or at least similar batch of cases instead of disposing of the entire bunch of 319 writ applications in a singular order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it appropriate to dispose of the appeals and not to wait for the others appeal to be filed and listed. The court nullified the directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and appointed a one-man committee to look into the legality of the appointments and continuance in service of the writ petitioners.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of on the agreed terms, and there was no order as to costs. The present order was restricted to the appeals which were disposed of by the present order only.

JUDGEMENT

1. I.A. Nos. 8602/09, 8600/09, 8598/09, 8614/09, 1208/10, 8608/09, 8624/09, 8622/09, 8620/09, 8618/09, 8632/09, 8630/09, 8628/09, 8626/09, 8314/09, 55/10, 53/10, 57/10, 59/10, 61/10, 63/10, 51/10, 14/10, 49/10, 47/10, 45/10, 43/10, 41/10, 39/10, 37/10, 29/10, 27/10, 68/10, 66/10, 31/10, 35/10, 33/10, 71/10, 216/10, 214/10, 212/10, 220/10, 218/10, 222/10, 244/10, 242/10, 240/10, 230/10, 232/10, 234/10, 236/10, 227/10, 225/10, 282/10, 280/10, 284/10, 276/10, 402/10, 406/10, 396/10, 399/10, 410/10, 486/10, 483/10, 480/10, 547/10, 545/10, 543/10, 603/10, 597/10, 677/10, 674/10, 739/10, 743/10, 750/10, 748/10, 756/10, 758/10, 824/10, 864/10, 868/10, 924/10, 922/10, 928/10, 934/10, 932/10, 1003/10, 1001/10, 1007/10, 1009/10, 1011/10, 1013/10, 1015/10, 1065/10, 1067/10, 1055/10, 1059/10, 1061/10, 1051/10, 1087/10, 1089/10, 1085/10, 1079/10, 1076/10, 1267/10,1272/10, 1318/10,1143/10, 1147/10, 1183/10, 1188/10, 1186/10, 1389/10 and 1383/10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeals we are inclined to allow such prayer specially when learned counsel for writ petitioner- respondents have also raised no objection in such condonation of delay.

2. Accordingly the delay in filing of the connected appeals is hereby condoned and the aforesaid interlocutory applications are allowed.

3. As we have condoned the delay, we with the consent of the parties are also inclined to take up these appeals for final disposal at motion stage.

4. Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General, Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, Assistant State Counsel to A.A.G. 2 for the appellants and Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Mr. Shayama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Banbari Sharma, Mr. Prafulla Chandra Jha, Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakarverty, Mr. Panditji Pandey, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Singh, Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Mr. Lalan Singh, Mr. Gyanprakash, Mr. Diwakar Pd. Singh, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Singh, Mr. Sheel Bhadra Jha, Mr. Praveen Kumar Verma, Mr. Abhinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Shakti Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Mr. Srikant Pandey, Mr. Vivek Pd., Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Mr. Baban Rai, Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Mr. Umesh Kumar, Mr. Gazanan Arun, Mr. Shakti Sharan Kumar, Mr. Rajnandan Pd. Singh, Mr. Sidharth Harsh, Mr. Shibbalak Singh, Mr. Surjnarain Singh, Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Mr. Shashibhushan Singh, Mrs. Manisha Singh, Mr. R.K. Shukla, Mr. Baijnath Thakur, Mr. Vindyachal Singh, Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakarverty, Mr. Roshan Kumar Mishra and Mr. Shiv Kumar for the respondents.

5. In these batch of appeals the assail is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in case of C.WJ.C. No. 6575 of 2009 (Omprakash V/s. State of Bihar and other connected writ petitions) wherein the learned Single Judge had passed the following order:

"The judgment under appeal also appears to be on the premise as if the case is for considering regularization. The reference to Uma Devis case (Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi (3) and Others: [2006(2) PLJR (SC)363]: and Vermas case State of M.P. and Others V/s. Lalit Kumar Verma: [(2007)1 SCC 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 the present case. On consideration of submission of the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I find 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 em

Click Here to Read the rest of this document