Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B.N. AGRAWAL & SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Amrendra Singh & ors.
Arun Kumar & ors.
Smt. Anjani Singh & anr.
Dhurvendra Kumar & ors.
Mala Das
Vs.
The State of Bihar & ors. - Respondents (in all)
C.W.J.C. Nos. 8814 with 8897, 8931, 2159, 460 of 1997
Decided On : 8.10.1999
None
Fact of the Case:
In this case, the petitioners were Class III and Class IV employees of the Bihar Legislative Assembly who were appointed by the erstwhile Speaker after 1.11.90. The appointments were challenged by some persons through a writ petition on the ground that they were made without any advertisement and without holding any test as required under the Rules. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and the appointments were quashed. The petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court, but the appeals were dismissed. The petitioners then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were also dismissed. Subsequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated by an order dated 15.9.97 on the ground that the appointments had been made without publication of any advertisement, without following the prescribed process of selection, and wholly against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners challenged the termination of their services by filing writ petitions in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appointments of the petitioners were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and were void ab initio. The Court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice, as they had been given an opportunity to show cause before the impugned order was passed and had also filed review petitions in which they had the opportunity to place all the materials which they claimed to have. The Court further held that the petitioners had no extra or better rights than the earlier appointees whose appointments had been quashed by the Court in an earlier judgment, as they were appointed by the same authority and in the same manner as the earlier appointees. The Court also observed that the Speaker had already initiated a fresh process of selection by advertising the posts in Newspapers and that the petitioners would be entitled to participate in the selection process if they chose to apply.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointments of the petitioners were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to any relief on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the petitioners had any extra or better rights than the earlier appointees whose appointments had been quashed by the Court in an earlier judgment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointments of the petitioners were made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and were void ab initio, as they were made without publication of any advertisement, without following the prescribed process of selection, and wholly against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to any relief on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice, as they had been given an opportunity to show cause before the impugned order was passed and had also filed review petitions in which they had the opportunity to place all the materials which they claimed to have. 3. The petitioners had no extra or better rights than the earlier appointees whose appointments had been quashed by the Court in an earlier judgment, as they were appointed by the same authority and in the same manner as the earlier appointees.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
1. These five writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because the petitioners in all these five cases are similarly situated Class III and Class IV employees of Bihar Legislative Assembly appointed by the erstwhile Speaker of the Assembly after 1.11.90 in similar fashion, who have been removed from service by a common order dated 15.9.97 and in all the cases common points of law and facts are involved.
2. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the stand of the parties it is deemed necessary that before going into facts involved in these cases a bird's eye view be cast upon the admitted background materials that have culminated into termination of altogether 183 employees of Bihar Legislative Assembly by impugned order dated 15.9.97 including the services of all the petitioners in these five writ applications. Coinciding with convening of a new Bihar Legislative Assembly, one Mr. Gulam Sarwar became the speaker of the Assembly sometime in April, 1990 and continued as such till March 1995. After him the present speaker came to occupy that post in April, 1995. The erstwhile speaker made about 185 appointments to various Class-III and Class IV posts in the Bihar Legislative Assembly between the period 15.6.90 to 1.11.1990. Earlier there was some confusion regarding the aforesaid number of appointments but subsequently the aforesaid number has been ascertained and confirmed to be 185. The said appointments made between 15.6.90 to 1.11.90 were challenged by some persons through a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7995/90 (Harendra Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & others) on various grounds including the ground that the appointments made were without any advertisement and without holding any test as required under the Rules and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ application on 23.12.94 and quashed all the impugned appointments declaring them to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and void ab initio. The said judgment in the case of Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar and others is reported in 1995(1) PLJR 254. Against the aforesaid judgment Bihar Legislative Assembly as well as the affected appointees preferred Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of this Court. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals as well as one writ application bearing no. C.W.J.C. 10142/92 (Vijay Kumar Jha and others vs. The State of Bihar and others) were initially heard by a Division Bench of this Court but in their judgments dated 3rd. April, 1996 the two Hon'ble Judges failed to agree with regard to the fate of letters patent appeals although they were in agreement that C.W.J.C. No. 10142/92 filed by some temporary employees of the Secretariat of Bihar Legislative Assembly after three years of their removal had to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay as well as on the ground that they were temporary employees hence their termination which was not by way of punishment required no enquiry or assigning of any reason. In accordance with Patna High Court Rules the Letters Patent Appeals were finally heard by a 3rd. Hon'ble Judge who by his judgment dated 4.11.1996 reported in 1997(1) PLJR 1, agreed with the judgment given by Mr. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. and accordingly dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals and affirmed the judgment of learned single Judge dated 23.12.94. Against the aforesaid judgment of learned 3rd. Judge some of the appellants preferred special leave petitions being S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22747/96, 22869/96 and 23379/96 which were dismissed by the Apex Court on 2.12.1996.
4. Admittedly on immediate challenge being made to the mode of appointments adopted by the erstwhile speaker, the appointments made by him between 15.6.90 to 1.11.90 were finally terminated in December, 1996 after those appointments had been found and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
