The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the tenure of the Chairman, and the subsequent resolution for regularization was beyond the provisions of the law.

JUDGEMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and implementation of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as the RRDA) in its meeting held on 10.11.2008 (Annexure-2) and also for a direction for payment of salary from December, 2008 till date.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer Operator on the honorarium of Rs.5,500/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2006 which was a Co-Terminus appointment with the tenure of the then Chairman-R.N. Tiwari. After completion of the tenure of the said Chairman, his appointment was terminated in spite of the fact that the Board of RRDA vide its resolution dated 12.11.2008 has decided unanimously that the service of the petitioner will continue even after completion of the tenure of the said Chairman. This Court while hearing the matter vide its order dated 11.11.2019 has directed the petitioner to add Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand as respondent No.5 so that this Court can hear the stand of respondent No.5 as to whether in terms of Section 6 (4) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974; the resolution of the Board has been sent for approval of State Government or not.

Thereafter, the State represented through Secretary, Urban Development Department and filed an affidavit rejecting the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the very appointment of the petitioner was Co- Terminus with the tenure of the then Chairman and as such there was no question for any extension and further, no resolution of the Board was sent for approval to the State Government.

4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by RRDA as Computer Operator w.e.f. 01.04.2006. However, the RRDA’s Board of Directors in its meeting dated 10.11.2008 decided to regularize the petitioner’s service and vide Miscellaneous Item No.1 it was decided that even after completion of tenure of the then Chairman; the petitioner will continue in employment. He further submits that in spite of the aforesaid decision, the services of the petitioner and other amenities and benefits attached to the post for regular appointment has not been given to the petitioner and w.e.f. December, 2008 even the salary of the petitioner has been stopped.

He further submits that the other departments of the Government like in the services of the Governor’s Secretariat, similar such employees have been regularized and are working.

5. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondent- RRDA submits that the appointment of the petitioner was Co-Terminus with the tenure of the then Chairman. However, in the proceeding- Anyanya-1 of the meeting of the Board of R.R.D.A. it has been recommended that petitioner will remain in future after the tenure of the said Chairman. He further submits that the said recommendation was beyond the purview of Section 6 of the Act, 1974 and also against the appointment procedure. The said resolution of the Board’s meeting being contrary to the appointment procedure; the same was never adhered to and the same was never sent for approval.

He further submits that in the procedure for appointment in Class-III, there is a specific guideline from the Government and in this case the said procedure and guidelines were not followed and as such, the service of the petitioner was not regularized. He reiterated that the petitioner was appointed in the Chairman’s Cell on Co-Terminus basis i.e. only till the period of Chairman’s tenure and at present two posts are sanctioned for Computer Operator and in both posts; persons are working as per desire of the present Chairman. He further draws attention of this Court towar