The Competent Authority has the power to issue administrative instructions supplementing the rules, and the Finance Department's resolution setting a cut-off date for appointments holds legal weight.

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 88 dated 3.8.2002 vide which the petitioner was relieved from his service w.e.f. 1.8.2002 and a further prayer has been made for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Driver in Work Charge Establishment on 2.9.1989 but his service book has been opened on 19.9.1992, it is submitted that on 5.3.1997 the Special Secretary, Public Health Department, Bihar, Patna, directed for regularization of those employees who had completed 240 days under Work Charge Establishment. However, vide its impugned order dated 3.8.2002 the petitioner was relieved from his services and thereafter he made a representation on 23.8.2002 before the authorities and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 3.8.2002 vide which he was relieved from service.

3. The counsel for the respondent submits that the Competent Authority and the Finance Department vide its Resolution Memo No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 directed all the State Government Offices not to make appointment in future at any circumstance and in view of such Resolution, a cut off date was also fixed as 1.1.1998 for avoiding illegal appointment with the concurrence of Government. A decision was also taken vide letter No. 14 dated 3.1.1997 to retrench all those employees who were illegally appointed after 1.1.1988.

4. According to the respondent the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 vide Zonal Chief Engineer's Office order No. 106 dated 28.11.1990 and the same was against the Finance Department's Resolution No. 6394 dated 13.10.1987.

5. However, the petitioner has contended that he was initially appointed on 2.9.1989 and even assuming it to be correct, still then it is after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988.

6. The counsel for the respondents has further contended that the initial appointment letter itself indicated that it was purely temporary and provisional and it could be terminated at any point of time without any notice.

7. It has also been stated that such appointments were illegal and not made by the Competent Authority.

8. The Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the services of such persons were terminated based on Memo No. 3221 dated 16.7.2002 issued by the Regional Chief Engineer, P.H. Department, Ranchi under Memo No. 571 dated 22.6.2002 wherein a direction was issued that all the staff whose appointment were after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988 should be terminated from service.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Devendra Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

10. According to the petitioner similarly situated employee who was appointed in the year 1986 was regularized and thus the case of the petitioner should also be considered accordingly.

11. I have perused the pleadings and heard the rival contention.

12. The counsel for the petitioner is not correct in stating that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989. According to the respondents the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 by the Zonal Chief Engineer's Office order No. 106 dated 28.11.1990. Even according to the petitioner as per Annexure-1, which is office order No. 89 dated 2.9.1989 the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary and provisional basis with specific condition that his appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated at any point of time. Assuming the same to be correct, still then it is after the cut off date of 1.1.1988, as per the aforesaid resolution and thus the judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner being (Supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case for the sole reason that therein the petitioner was appointed in April 1986 i.e. prior to the cut off date.

13. The Full Bench of th