IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13581 of 2001 ANAND MOHAN ROY, son of late Sosurindra Mohan Roy, @ Surendra Mohan Roy, resident of Driver Tola, Katihar Police Station and District Katihar……Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Town Development, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Town Development, State of Bihar, Main Secretariat Building at Patna 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Town Development of the Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat Building at Patna 4. The Katihar Municipality, Katihar, District Katihar 5. The Special Officer, Katihar Municipality at Katihar …Respondents ----------- 04- 22.12.2008 Heard Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha for the petitioner, learned JC to AAG for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Mr. Naresh Kumar Sinha for respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Katihar Municipality). The petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure 7) in so far as the same concerns him, whereby the Katihar Municipality has rejected his representation with respect to the cancellation of his confirmation as an employee of the Municipality. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and supported the impugned action. 2. According to the writ petition, the Municipality had engaged the petitioner on daily wages by order 6.2.98 (Annexure 1). His services were regularized as a Jamadar on 16.8.98 vide order dated 14.8.98 (Annexure 2). The position was slightly modified by order dated 16.8.98 (Annexure 3), whereby his services were instead regularized as Work Sarkar. The State Government issued a general order directing the Municipality to dispense with the services of such - 2 - daily wages employees who have been appointed after 1.8.1985. The petitioner’s services were also dispensed with leading to CWJC No.4295 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated 4.4.2001 (Annexure 5), whereby the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner was set aside. The Municipality was directed to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner and take a final decision after consideration of the matter. The Municipality acted accordingly leading to the impugned order, whereby the services of 48 similarly circumstanced employees have been dispensed with. The petitioner challenges the validity of the same in so far as it concerns him. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issue is concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 15.7.2003, passed in LPA No.531 of 2003 (Subhash Chandra Mahto & Others v. State of Bihar & Ors.), and the analogous LPA No.560 of 2003 (Shankar Prasad Goswami & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.). The similarly circumstanced employees of the Municipality had preferred writ petitions on identical grounds which had been dismissed. They preferred the said appeals which have been dismissed by order dated 15.7.2007, mainly on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Rules, framed in terms of Section 42 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipalities Act, were not followed. The procedure to fill up the post etc. was not followed which goes to the root of the matter. In that view of the matter, the appeals were dismissed. Furthermore, law is well settled that public employment in this country is a national - 3 - wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to achieve the same. The same is possible only if the posts are given wide publicity and every eligible citizen has the right and the opportunity to apply for consideration. This issue had engaged attention of this Court in the previous writ petition bearing CWJC No.4295 of 2001 which has been disposed of by order dated 4.4.2001 (Annexure 5), whereby the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner was set aside, and the Municipality was directed to consider the petitioner’s case. The petitioner’s case has since been considered and rejected by the impugned order. I must hasten to add that the impugned order is rather unsatisfactory and does not assign reason in support of the order. However, in view of the admitted position, the decision of this Court in the said appeals, and the constitutional position, the impugned order is a valid order and cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl