Satish Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5040 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Letters Patent Appeal No.1521 of 2014
                                         In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2628 of 2014
     ======================================================

Satish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ram Nath Singh, Resident of Village Dhanechha, Police Station Durgawati, District Kaimur Bhabua.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna

3. The Director Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna

4. The Inquiry Committee through its Chairman, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.N.Prasad, SC-9 Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 04-10-2023

The appeal is by the writ petitioner challenging

the judgment rejecting his claim for regularisation.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant produced

before us a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.A(C)

No. 3431 of 2017, titled as Pradeep Narayan Jha V. The State

of Bihar & Ors., dated 28.11.2022; which, according to him, is

on similar circumstances.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1521 of 2014 dt.04-10-2023

3. The learned Government Advocate, on the

other hand, pointed out that this is the second round of litigation

and the representation filed after taking permission from this

Court in the earlier round, was rejected, which order is neither

produced nor challenged in the writ petition.

4. The petitioner in the writ petition challenged

an order dated 05.06.1998 (Annexure-1) passed by the 3 rd

respondent, which terminated the service of the petitioner on the

ground that his initial appointment itself was illegal, made by an

officer who had no authority to make such an appointment. In

fact, an Inquiry Committee had gone into the appointments

when a prayer was made to reinstate the petitioner, based on

which, the said prayer was also dismissed.

5. The petitioner is said to have been appointed

as a Store Keeper, a Class-III post, by an office order dated

16.09.1986 for a period of three months, by the Rehabilitation

Officer, North Koyal Project, Daltenganj from Annexure-2. His

services were extended from time to time and a show cause

notice was issued on 17.06.1997. An opportunity for hearing

was afforded and the service of the petitioner was terminated

with immediate effect, as per Annexure-1 on the grounds above

referred.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1521 of 2014 dt.04-10-2023

6. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 8333 of 1998,

which was dismissed by Annexure-5 dated 13.08.2008. An

appeal was filed as LPA No. 56 of 2009, which was permitted to

be withdrawn by Annexure-6 order dated 28.02.2009, reserving

liberty to approach the Committee for redressal of his grievance.

A representation was filed on 23.03.2009, which was rejected by

order dated 27.12.2010. This order has neither been produced

before Court nor challenged in the writ petition. The writ

petition itself was filed much later in the year 2014.

7. The learned Single Judge, according to us, has

rightly found that the petitioner was appointed purely on a

provisional basis, which appointment itself was by a person not

authorised to make such appointment. There was no procedure

followed by inviting application from the public before such

appointment was made, clearly violating Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution of India.

8. The learned Single Judge also relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.; (2006)4 SCC 1,

in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the

practise of backdoor appointments and emphasised the need for

adherence to the rule of equality in public employment; failure Patna High Court L.P.A No.1521 of 2014 dt.04-10-2023

of which would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The learned Single Judge also specifically noticed

the caution expressed in the cited decision to restrain the High

Courts from permitting absorption or regularization of persons

who indulged in "litigious employment".

9. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited

before us, despite noticing that pursuant to an interim order, the

appellant therein had continued in service from 2003 upheld the

decision of the High Court, which negatived a similar claim of

regularisation.

10. We find no reason to entertain the appeal and

the same stands dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Rajiv Roy, J) Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          07.10.2023
Transmission Date