2003 Supreme(Jhk) 1103
Jharkhand High Court
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Md.Kalimuddin - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
WP(S) No. 687 Of 2003
Decided On : 9 September, 2003
Headnote:Service Law – Dismissal due to appointment held illegal – appointment of petitioners one and two done according to rules and procedure prescribed – order of dismissal of petitioners one and two quashed – so far appointment of petitioners 3 and 4 is concerned, their names neither appeared in the district panel nor recommended by district establishment committee – their appointment held not legal and valid – application allowed in part. (Paras 11 to 16)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby appointment of the petitioners have been held to be illegal and also for quashing the order dated 20.12.2002 whereby petitioners have been relieved from their service.
2. Petitioners case is that in the year 1982 certain vacancies arose for the post of Unani Compounder (Indigenous corn-pounder) in the department of health and Family Welfare and requisition was sent to the employment exchange office for forwarding the name of eligible candidates and accordingly names of petitioner No. 1 and other eligible candidates where forwarded to the concerned department. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter appeared in interview and on being declared successful he was given appointment with effect from 22.9.1982. Copy of the office order dated 22.9.1982 is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application.
3. It is contended by the petitioner No. 1 that since then he has been working and discharging his duty and was given first time bound promotion in the year 1999. Copy of the office order dated 26.10.1999 giving time bound promotion has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. Petitioner No. 1 while in service was also transferred to various place and he joined and performed his duty on the transferred post.
4. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was also got himself enrolled in the employment exchange and on the request made by the concerned respondent the name of petitioner No. 2 alongwith other eligible candidates were forwarded for the appointment in the post of Indigenous Compounder. Petitioner No. 2 was then called for interview vide letter-dated 16.6.1986 and by the office order dated 21.6.1986 he was given appointment on the said post. Petitioner No. 2 also submitted his joining on 23.6.1986 and since then he has been working on the said post. Petitioner has annexed copy of the proceeding of the appointment committee as Annexure-11 to the counter affidavit. Petitioner No. 2 was also given first time bound promotion and he has been working on the said post.
5. So far petitioner No. 3 is concerned he was also enrolled in the employment exchange in 1988 and was appointed on the post of sweeper-cum-servant in the office of the District Indigenous Medical Office vide office order as contained in memo dated 31.7.1987 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner was subsequently posted as State Homeopathic Clinic, Ramagarh, Durnka vide order dated 1.8.1987. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on the post of sweeper-cum-servant in the office of the State Homeopathic, Clinic, Nala Dumka vide office order dated 17.10.1989 on the basis of recommendation of the Deputy. Commissioner. He also submitted his joining on the said post in 1989.
6. Further case of the petitioners is that all of a sudden their salary was withheld since June 2001 and inspite of repeated requisition salary were, not released. Petitioner then moved this Court by filing WPS No. 5848/2001 which was disposed of on 4.12.2001 with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the Director, Deshi Chikitsa, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the latter was also directed to pass appropriate order for payment of salary. Petitioners accordingly, filed their representation before the respondents. When the direction of this Court was not complied with petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 328/2002. In the said contempt case, respondents filed their show cause stating that representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the impugned order dated 12.8.2002 and it was held that appointment of the petitioners was illegal.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5, Zila Deshi Chikitsa Padadhikari, Dumka wherein it is stated that appointment of the petitioners have been found illegal as the proper procedure laid down for appointment was not followed. So