IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4265 of 2006 Ramashish Yadav, Son of Sri Ramdev Yadav, resident of Village-Kuraha, P.O.&P.S.-Sahebpur Kamal, District-Begusarai. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.G.-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The D.I.G. of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna. 5. The D.I.G. of Police, Muner Range, Munger. 6. The S.P., Sheikhpura. –Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s-Raj Kumar Rajesh with Pranesh Kumar Arya. Counsel for the State : Mr. K.P. Gupta, SC-5. ------------ 03 30.11.2010 It appears that pursuant to creation of 15 new districts in the State of Bihar, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Bihar in the Department of Home Affairs issued a letter creating the post of Superintendent of Police and other officials for the newly created districts. This included the posts of Compounder, Dresser Nursing etc. These posts were sanctioned year to year with adequate budgetary allocations. Subsequently, these were made permanently sanctioned post. It appears that to fill up the post of Compounder, Dresser etc, as there was no provision for their recruitment, a district level committee was constituted headed by the Superintendent of Police of the district. After due advertisement issued on 12.11.1997, applications were invited and petitioner being desirous, applied for the post of Dresser. He was duly interviewed and having been found fit for appointment, was selected as such. Petitioner continued to work as such when all of a sudden in the year 2001 his salary was stopped. It appears that after salary was stopped D.I.G. (Administration), Bihar, Patna enquired from the present Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura - 2 - to explain under what circumstances petitioner was appointed. The reply of the Superintendent of Police dated 26.08.2001 is contained in Annexure-6 and explains the whole situation clearly pointing out that the petitioner was, apparently, duly selected pursuant to advertisement and was appointed way back on 21.11.1997 and had been working as such. The selection had been made by a Selection Committee as there was no other provision specifically providing for the process. Notwithstanding that, by Annexure-8 dated 28.06.2002 by orders of the Superintendent of Police petitioner was dismissed apparently pursuant to directions of the D.I.G. (Administration), Bihar, Patna. The ground for dismissal was that the post of Dresser was a technical post related to medicine and, as such, the Selection Committee ought to have consulted the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer of the district and the recruitment should have been done through that process. Admittedly and undisputedly, even though two counter affidavits have been filed by the State, no where the stand is that the petitioner was at fault nor is there any allegation that any wrong was done in the selection process. The question is, whether in view of the facts aforesaid can petitioner be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedure prescribed at the time when selection was made which provided for a selection process in a manner other than what was done. Having considered the counter affidavits and the pleadings, in my view, the dismissal of petitioner is quite arbitrary and - 3 - cannot be sustained. Petitioner had noting to do with the constitution of the Selection Committee or the process adopted by them for selection. Pursuant to advertisement, petitioner applied, after interview he was selected, he was duly appointed and payments were regularly made from 1997 to 2001. From the pleadings, it appears that it was for the first time in the year 2000 when Home Department realized that such recruitments of Compounder, Dresser etc being technical ought to be done in consultation with the Civil Surgeon. The question is whether this decision of the year 2000 can at all be used for terminating the services of the petitioner, who was duly selected and appointed in the year 1997. The answer has to be simple no. From the pleadings, it is very clear that in the year 1997 there was no clear cut policy as to the procedure of appointment and, that being so, the procedure as adopted by the Superintendent of Police cannot be faulted with nor any other fault in the process has been pointed out. The executive decision taken in the year 2000 cannot have retrospective effect to nullify a transaction that took place validly in the year 1997. What should be the selection process and how it should be carried out are all part of “indoor management” with which petitioner has nothing to do. In my view, there was some fault to the selection process or constitution of the committee and for that the petitioner’s selection cannot be cancelled. There was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the authority in making the appointment. At no place it is stated that the posts were not sanctioned. In fact, Finance - 4 - Department made adequate budgetary allocation for payment to the petitioner and his like. Considering all these aspects of the matter, in my view, the dismissal of the petitioner was rather arbitrary and not in accordance with law. Therefore, I am left with no option but to set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and issue direction for his immediate reinstatement. However, petitioner would be paid for the period for which he has worked and for the purposes of service he shall be deemed to be in continuance of service though will not be entitled to the financial benefits for the period he remained out of job. It shall be the responsibility of District Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura to comply the order of this Court. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)