IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5423 of 2006 Ram Uday Prasad, son of Ramashis Singh, resident of village + P.O. Ark Dhibaria, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya ………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh Division, Gaya 5. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad …………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Sr.Adv. with M/s Rajesh Kumar and Narendra Kr.Singh,Adv. For the State : Mr.Ranjan Kr.Singh,A.C.to G.P.2 ---------- 4. 29/10/2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner in this writ application has challenged Annexure-1, order dated 12.6.2003 of respondent Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad, by which service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that in his appointment procedure prescribed by letter no.16440 dated 3.12.1980 was not followed and therefore, his appointment was illegal. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 18.5.1982 on daily wages and thereafter by Annexure-3 dated 18.1.1984 his services were absorbed. Since then he continued - 2 - in service and now after rendering almost 21 years of service he is being terminated on the ground that due procedure was not followed in his appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which it is stated that appointment of petitioner was illegal and therefore his services were rightly terminated. With the counter affidavit, respondents have also annexed the said letter no.16440 dated 3.12.1980. Learned counsel for the State also submits that there is interpolation in Annexure-2 which also creates doubt with regard to genuineness of the appointment of petitioner. He also submits that there is delay of about three years on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court after order of his termination was passed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that since petitioner has completed much more than ten years of service, he is entitled for consideration of his case in terms of observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 44 of Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, - 3 - reported in 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363. He also submits that petitioner is also protected by letter no.7639 dated 11.6.1986 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department by which appointments made after 1.8.1985 were only directed to be cancelled. After going through paragraph 44 of the said Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court, submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. In the circumstances, Annexure-1 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna for consideration of the case of petitioner in terms of directions contained in paragraph 44 of the said Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court. While considering the case of the petitioner, the Director-in-Chief may also consider applicability of the said letter dated 11.6.1986 to the case of the petitioner. It is made clear that till final orders are passed by the Director-in-Chief in respect of the petitioner upon consideration of his case in terms of said paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench Judgment, petitioner shall not be entitled - 4 - to any salary. Since petitioner is out of service, the Director-in-Chief, in any case, shall pass final orders in the matter within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)