IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1732 of 2001 RAMESH PRASAD SHARMA @ RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 6.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “ By this writ application the petitioner make frontal attack to arbitrary, high handed capricious and malafide action of the State Government communicated by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (respondent no.3) and Rehabilitation Officer, Durgawati Reservoir project, Sasaram, respondent no.4, whereby and whereunder he has taken the extreme step of dispensing with the service of the petitioner who has legally and validly appointed against Class IV post on the recommendation of the establishment officers and pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government to give benefit and advantage to the persons retrenched from previous Govt. service for appointment against Class IV posts, accordingly the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the orders of his termination/ 2 removal of his services from Class IV post.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that not only such appointments including that of the petitioner had stood the test of different orders of this Court but in fact had been also approved by this Court while set aside and order of termination and reinstating a person similarly situated at the petitioner in an order dated 24.1.2007 in C.W.J.C.No. 6832/2004 and its analogous cases and remitting the matter back for considering their cases for regularization of service in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi & ors., reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, the impugned decision dispensing with the services of the petitioner on the face of record was unsustainable and thus fit to be set aside. Counsel, in this context, would also submit that since the said order of this Court dated 24.1.2007 has also been affirmed by the Division Bench by an order dated 3 10.7.2007 in L.P.A.No. 257/2007 and its analogous cases this Court must direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra). Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the two Division Bench judgments of this Court upholding the government decision of termination of surplus of petitioner relating to exactly similar appointment and in fact of the same post. He would in the context refer to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar & ors. vs. Prashant Kumar Sharma & ors., reported in 2003(2) PLJR 27, as also in the case of State of Bihar & ors. vs. Shiv Shankar & anor., reported in 2008(3) PLJR 363. Before this Court would go into the issues already adjudicated either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench it must record here that the appointment of the petitioner was a rank illegal appointment, inasmuch as it is the Land Acquisition Officer, who is said to have 4 initially engaged the petitioner on the post of Chainman without following any norms of direct recruitment. Assuming that such appointments were made only for a limited period of three months, even such appointments should have been made only after a proper advertisement and selection. Admittedly no such advertisement or selection was made. The continuance of the petitioner in service for three months on the basis of an illegal appointment became somehow of spring boat for his regular appointment by the Director, Land Acquisition of Water Resources Department. Such order of regular appointment of the petitioner would go to show that a cyclostyled order was prepared for filling up only the name of the person with a usual description that all such chainmen who were earlier engaged and were terminated from service by the Land Acquisition Officer were to be treated as retrenched employee and to be reinstated and retained in service. The Director in question in fact even did not follow the concept of retrenched employee which under 5 the 1967 circular of the State Government clearly requires a minimum continuance of six months and abandoning/closure of scheme on account of its non-extension by the State Government. Neither of the two requirements were infact fulfilled and yet the petitioner was treated to be a retrenched employee. Obviously the Director had over-stepped his limit. Consequently this Court would find no merit in that part of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had continued in service for a considerable length of period i.e. around 14 years. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in fact are the only safeguard for every citizen ensuring equality to them is seeking employment in Government service and if this Court would find that such appointments alike that of the petitioner came to be made in flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, no writ of mandamus can be issued for even regularization of such service. Consequently, this Court would not be in a position to direct the respondents for 6 reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the judgment of Uma Devi(supra). In fact in the case of Uma Devi itself not only the concept of regularization merely on the ground of long continuance has been deprecated but the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had gone a step ahead in clearly shutting the doors for such illegally appointed employees. In fact this aspect of the matter again has been gone into by this Court at great length in the case of Sheo Shankar (supra). Thus following the aforementioned Division Bench Judgment and the earlier view of this Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra) this Court must hold that there is no error in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference by this Court. While parting with, this Court would further like to observe that these persons came to be engaged on daily wages through back door and subsequently got appointed in regular Government service primarily on account of their own evil 7 design in collusion with the Land Acquisition Officer or the Director. Had they not obliged the petitioner by bestowing personal favour to him, he would not have continued in service for this long period. Therefore, all that this Court can observe while dismissing this writ application is that if and when the regular appointment would be made on the post of Chainman the case of the petitioner would be considered after giving him relaxation of age for the period he had admittedly worked in the Government service. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/