IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5845 of 2007 Binod Kumar, SON OF LATE BALBHADRA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O- VILL.- ARKDHIBARIA, P.S.- TEKARI, DISTT.- GAYA :----PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF (RAIL) POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPTY. INSPECTOR GENERAL (RAIL) BIHAR, PATNA. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL (RAIL), KATIHAR, BIHAR. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF RAIL POLICE, KATIHAR. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIWAN :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/S. Veena Rani Prasad, Vishal Saurabh, Advocates For the State :- 2. 18.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Government Railway Police, Katihar under District Order No. 664/89 dated 15.4.1989. He has filed this writ petition questioning the District Order No. 324/2003 dated 25.3.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar, Annexure-1/1, whereunder his appointment as a Constable has been terminated on the ground that his appointment as Constable under District Order No. 664/89 dated 15.4.1989 was not preceded by the recommendation of the Selection Committee. From further perusal of the order dated 25.3.2003 it appears that appointment of Constable made without the recommendation of the Selection Committee is being treated as illegal appointment 2 and for terminating such illegal appointment instructions have been issued by the Police Headquarter under Memo No. 1559 dated 21.12.2002 and Memo No. 2587 dated 15th June, 2002. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the very basis on which the aforesaid order no. 324/2003 dated 25.3.2003 has been passed that the appointment of the petitioner as Constable under District Order No. 664/89 dated 15.4.1989 was not preceded by any recommendation of the Selection Committee is wholly incorrect. It is submitted in this regard that petitioner was appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued for appointment of Technical Constable knowing typing and shorthand in the year 1989 after he appeared in a typing test, became successful as also after physical verification of his height, chest and other relevant parameters. Having received the order dated 25.3.2003 petitioner challenged the same by filing appeal before the I.G., Railways, Respondent No. 2 on 9.7.2003 and statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on 3 behalf of Superintendent of Rail Police, Katihar, Respondent No. 5, in Paragraph 5 whereof statement has been made that petitioner was appointed under D.O No. 664 on 15.4.1989 in Katihar Rail District on the basis of Memo No. 1199/P.A dated 13.4.1989 of I.G. Police, Rail, Bihar. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, his age, height, chest were measured and noted in the register in routine manner. In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit further statement is made that after receipt of Memo No. 3401/P-2 dated 1.8.2002 from D.G.-cum-I.G., Bihar appointment of Constable made on the recommendation of Superior Officers as special case during the last 15 years was directed to be treated as irregular appointment and list of those irregularly appointed constable(s) was sought for which was forwarded under Memo No. 40 dated 14.1.2003 in which the name of the petitioner is also included. In the entire counter affidavit statement of the petitioner that he was appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1989 for appointment of Technical Constable knowing typing and shorthand after he became successful in the selection process and thereafter the then 4 I.G. Sri D.N. Sahay recommended his appointment as Constable in Katihar Rail Police has not been denied. 5. As the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Superintendent of Railway Police, Katihar does not dispute the case of the petitioner that he was appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1989 for appointment of Technical Constable knowing typing and shorthand in which he became successful, whereafter the then I.G. Police Sri D.N. Sahay recommended his appointment under Memo No. 839 dated 14.4.1989 as also the fact that petitioner challenged the termination order by filing appeal before the I.G., Railways on 9.7.2003 which has not been disposed of so far has not been disputed in the counter affidavit, I have no option but to set aside the impugned termination order dated 25.3.2003, Annexure 1/1 with direction to the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar who shall verify from the police headquarter as also from his own office whether any advertisement for appointment of Technical Constable knowing typing and shorthand in the year 1989 was published in 5 response whereto petitioner appeared, became successful and was recommended for appointment. In the event the contention of the petitioner is found correct, petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid arrears of salary from 25.3.2003 till the date of this order, failing which Superintendent of Police shall pass a reasoned order maintaining the termination of the petitioner from the initial date of termination i.e. 25.3.2003. Orders in compliance of this order be passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of appearance of the petitioner along with a copy of this order before the S.R.P., Katihar. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)