IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10179 of 2010 1. SANJIV KUMAR, S/O SHRI TAPESHWAR PRASAD VERMA, R/O VILLAGE SARISTABAD M.I.LANE),P.S.SARDANIBAGH,DISTRICT- PATNA (TOWN). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR,OLD SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 2. SECRETARY,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,OLD SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 3. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 4. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 3RD FLOOR ,SONE BHAWAN,BIRCHAND PATEL MARG,PATNA. 5. SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION , 3RD FLOOR ,SONE BHAWAN,BIRCHAND PATEL MARG,PATNA. With CWJC No.11895 of 2010 1. DAIZY RAI W/O SHATRUGHAN RAI R/O VILL.- ANANDPUR, POST- BANIAPUR, P.S.- BANIAPUR, DISTT.- CHAPRA, AT PRESENT R/O 47 (A) B, S.K. PURI, P.S.- S.K. PURI, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION 3RD FLOOR, SONE BHAWAN, R-BLOCK, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SONE BHAWAN, R-BLOCK, PATNA With CWJC No.18998 of 2008 1. SUNIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Son Of Sri Dharam Nath Prasad Srivastava, Resident Of Village/Mohalla Mahavir Nagar, Saichak, Beur, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Patna 2. Jai Prakash Narayan Gupta Son of Sri Ram Narayan Gupta a resident of Mrarilal Gupta, Pachkauri Sah Gali, West Lohanipur, Kadamkuan, Patna-3 3. Lalan Prasad Singh son of Late Deokaran Singh, resident of Village-Nirpura, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Post.-Nisharpura, District- Patna 4. Sanjay Kumar son of Sri Gopi Ram, resident of East Bhikachak, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Patna 5. Sudhir Kumar son of Late Jagat Pangiyar, resident of Agarpur P.s.-Lalganj, District- Vaishali. 2 6. Rajendra Prasad son of Sri Hiralal Prasad resident of C/74 Punaichak, Road No. 9, P.S.-Shastrinagar, Patna 7. Binod Kumar Thakur son of Sri Indrakant Thakur, resident of lal Bahadur Shastrinagar, 85/20, Peon Quarter, P.S. Shastrinagar, Patna 8. Navin Kumar son of Sri Indradeo Prasad, resident of 7 Kranti Marg, Harding Road, P.S.-Secretariate, Patna Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariate, Patna 3. The Secretary Panchayat Raj, Bihar, Patna 4. The State Election Commissioner, 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bihar, Patna, through Commissioner 5. The Secretary, State Election Commission, 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 6. The Director, Panchayat Raj, New Secretariate, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prakesh Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Adv. For the Election Commission: - Mr. R.S. Pardhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.B. Nath, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Nilu Agrawal, Adv. S.C.-6 G.A.-10 G.P.-10 -------------- 3. 31.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Bihar State Election Commission. These three writ applications arise out of similar facts raising similar issues and are being considered in light of the order of the Chief Secretary dated 17.6.2010 passed in context of C.W.J.C. No. 16672 of 2009, preferred earlier by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11895 of 2010 and are therefore being disposed by a 3 common order. The only distinguishing factor to be noticed is in C.W.J.C. No. 11895 of 2010 with regard to orders dated 4.11.2009 and 5.11.2009 dispensing with the services of the petitioners. In view of the clear stand taken by the State even with regard to her, to be presently noticed hereinafter in the present order, there is no occasion for this Court to consider and/or adjudicate the legality of the aforesaid order in the present application. The facts of the case have been adequately noticed in the order dated 24.2.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16672 of 2009 and in terms of which certain other writ petitions preferred by some of the other petitioners were disposed off. This Court, therefore, does not consider it necessary to take note of the facts all over again and which can be conveniently referred to from the order dated 24.2.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 16672 of 2009. Suffice it to say that the order of the Chief Secretary dated 17.6.2010 aptly notices that the authority to make appointment of the nature of the petitioners vested in the State Government and not in the State Election Commission. More aptly it vested in the Panchayati Raj Department of the State Government. 4 In the entire gamut of the controversy, a fair stand has been taken on behalf of the State with regard to all the petitioners that their engagement in the State Election Commission shall not be terminated/discontinued till such time that appointments are not made in the manner as directed in the order of the Chief Secretary dated 17.6.2010. There is no occasion for the Court to issue any formal directions when the State itself takes a specific stand to act in a particular manner. That shall be one aspect of the matter. The other is the direction of this Court in the order dated 24.2.2010 noticing from Government communications dated 24.7.2008, Letter No. 4738 and 8.8.2008 Letter No. Estb. 10-24/2006-2178 that a conscious policy decision for absorption of the petitioners was pending consideration for which the Administrative and Personnel Reforms Department had opined that the Panchayat Raj Department was itself competent to take a final decision. This Court had referred the matter to the Chief Secretary in the entirety of the controversy of a stand off between the two departments of the State Government and also the issue of regularization pending consideration before the respondents themselves. The latter aspect of the matter is not reflected by any consideration in the order 5 of the Chief Secretary dated 17.6.2010. Needless to state that the latter direction contained in the order dated 24.2.2010 with regard to regularization still remains to be considered. This Court therefore directs that aspect of the matter to be finally decided also. It is clarified that the first part of the present order that the petitioners shall not be disturbed till fresh appointments are not made in terms of the order of the Chief Secretary shall not be restriction or impediment for consideration of their cases for regularization which is an independent matter to be considered on its own merits. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)