Umesh Ram vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5294 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.472 of 2020
     ======================================================

Umesh Ram Son of Ram Swarup Ram resident of Narayanpur, P.O.- Sakri, P.S.- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director-in- Chief (Disease Control) Health Services, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani.

5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Pandaul, Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10 Mr. Jitendra Kumar, (AC to GA-10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-10-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed for

quashing the order dated 23.06.2019 as contained in Memo No.

868(4) dated 25.06.2019 annexed as Annexure- 9 issued by

respondent no. 3 (The Director-in-Chief {Disease Control}

Health Services, Bihar, Patna) and communicated to the

petitioner vide Memo No. 300/ Pandaul dated 16.07.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was initially engaged by the Civil Surgeon-cum-

Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani on the post of Sweeper as

daily wager vide Memo No. 2293 dated 30.12.1988. Thereafter,

his service was regularized vide letter no. 1028 dated Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2020 dt.12-10-2023

19.05.1992 by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical

Officer Madhubani on the recommendation of the Directorate

Health Services, who found the service of the petitioner

satisfactory.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner has been discharging his duty on the

satisfaction of the authorities concerned and there was nothing

against him. Service book was also opened and he was granted

all the service benefits. Counsel further submits that in the

district of Madhubani in the Health Department, an inquiry was

set up with respect to appointment of 61 employees including 6

Class-IV employees but vide letter no. 1667(4) dated

12.09.2011, the service of the petitioner was found legal/valid

and name of the petitioner in the said list was found at serial no.

4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that in the year 2019 vide Memo No. 739(4) dated

28.05.2019, the Director-in-Chief (Deceased Control) Health

Service, Bihar, Patna has issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner directing him to file his reply within five days. The

petitioner has filed his reply about his selection and

regularization but Prapatra- K has been issued to the petitioner

vide Memo No. 2415 dated 22.09.2018 by the Civil Surgeon,

Madhubani. The petitioner has filed his reply on 09.01.2018 Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2020 dt.12-10-2023

requesting him to exonerate him from the charges framed vide

Memo No. 2415 dated 22.09.2018, but the Director-in-Chief

(Deceased Control) Health Services vide his order dated

23.06.2019 as contained in Memo No. 868(4) dated 25.06.2019,

communicated to the petitioner that his service be declared as

illegal and void ab initio, therefore, the petitioner was

terminated without considering his reply and the documents

submitted without a full fledged departmental inquiry on the

dictates of the Hon'ble Lok Ayukt, Bihar, Patna.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that in the writ petition, the petitioner primarily

challenges that his appointment was made by the competent

authority. In the inquiry, his appointment was found valid and

thirdly on the ground that when Prapatra- K has been issued, in

which departmental proceeding has been initiated, then instead

of passing any order followed by departmental proceeding, a

letter has been issued in which his service has been terminated

which is bad in law and, therefore, he submits that interference

is required in this matter.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

filed reply and submits that the initial appointment of the

petitioner of the year 1980 is itself illegal as the said

appointment has been made in gross violation of the then

circular. According to him, the said circular is Annexure- (C) of Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2020 dt.12-10-2023

the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, who submits that

according to the said circular that the methodology of

appointment has been mentioned in paragraph 6, 7 and 10 of the

said circular which has completely been ignored.

8. Learned counsel for the State further submits

that there were series of persons who were appointed on Class-

IV post ignoring the said circular and the subsequent guidelines

issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, in letter no.

16441 dated 03.12.1980. Counsel further submits that the said

circular was tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24742 of

2012 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad).

9. The stand of the State is that since the

appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio, therefore, the

petitioner cannot be said to be the civil servant and hence,

protection under Article 311 of the Constitution to conduct the

disciplinary proceeding under the disciplinary rules shall not

arise.

10. Learned counsel for the State further submits

that in the order impugned i.e. issued vide Memo No. 1841

dated 03.07.2019, this aspect has categorically discussed and

there is no question of any interference in the same.

11. Upon going through the pleadings of the parties

and the documents mentioned in the writ petition, it transpires to Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2020 dt.12-10-2023

this Court that the initial entry of the petitioner has been made in

gross violation of the letter annexed in Annexure- 3 i.e. letter no.

16441 dated 03.12.1980 and in the said judgment, particularly,

17(i) indicates that Hon'ble Apex Court at the time of deciding

has categorized four situations. One of the situations is

appointment made on the basis of forged appointment letter.

12. In view of this Court, any appointment made

ignoring the law of the land and issuance of appointment letter

on the basis of ignoring such law shall be treated to be the

appointments made on the basis of the forged appointment letter

about which the finding is already there in the Hon'ble Apex

Court that such appointments, where back-door entries on the

act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from any judicial

standard cannot be said to be a regular appointment but are

illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process and in this

background, this Court found no merit in this writ petition.

13. With this direction, the present writ application

is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          18.10.2023
Transmission Date       NA