IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17084 of 2009 Ramjee Prasad son of late Rameshwar Mahto, R/o Village Banuan, P.S. Dhibra, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The principal Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director in Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5.The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. 6.The Five Men Enquiry Committee, Health Department, Govt.of Bihar, Patna through its Chairman…..Respondents. -------------------- 4 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the part of inquiry report of five men committee dated 28.8.2008 whereby his appointment has been placed in the category of illegal appointee, saying that the Regional Deputy Director, Gaya was not the competent authority to make such appointment. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Mali by memo no. 49 ( c ) dated 30.11.1989 at the Sadar Hospital Aurangabad. Till the year 2003 no objection was raised against the appointment of the petitioner and suddenly in the year 2003 a show cause notice was issued to him to submit his show cause as to why he should not be terminated from the post of Mali as his appointment has not been made by the competent authority. The petitioner submitted his show cause but the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad vide memo no.1470 dated 28.6.2003 terminated the petitioner from service. C.W.J.C. No. 8083 of 2003 filed by the 2 petitioner challenging the termination order was allowed by a common order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases and the termination order quashed. The State preferred L.P.A. No. 715 of 2005 against the order passed in the writ application , which was heard and disposed of by a common order dated 26.6.2006 passed I L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases directing the State Government to Constitute a five men Committee to examine the cases of all petitioners, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. The five men Committee submitted a report in which the petitioner’s appointment has been found to be illegal as the appointment letter has been issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Gaya who was not authorized to issue such appointment letter. The inquiry report has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not assigned any opportunity to appear before the Committee neither was allowed to submit his show cause. Petitioner’s appointment was held to be illegal without any proper inquiry. Petitioners has also challenged the enquiry report on the ground that similarly situated persons who had also been appointed by the same Regional Deputy Director, his appointment was also held to be illegal which he challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 6045 of 2009 (Rajeshwar Pd. Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) Writ application filed by him has been allowed, and the report of five men committee has been quashed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, 3 besides the ground which has been taken in the five men committee for holding petitioners appointment as illegal, one more ground has been taken, treating his appointment illegal. It has been stated that appointment of petitioner was against unsanctioned post. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit cannot be allowed for the reasons that no such finding has been recorded by the five men committee. only ground for holding petitioner’s appointment illegal is that the appointing authority has no jurisdiction to make such appointment. That ground has already been disbelieved and held to be non existent ground, in C.W.J.C. No. 6045 of 2009 preferred by a similarly situated person. I find that the petitioner is also entitled for same relief. The report of the five men committee holding petitioners appointment illegal as such is quashed. The petitioner has continued on the post since 1989 till 2003, without any intervention and without help of any judicial order, as such his appointment comes within the category which is fit to be considered for regularization and absorption. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. For these reasons the impugned report dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure-4) submitted by the five men committee so far it relates to the petitioner is quashed. This application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post with effect from date he was terminated with all consequential benefits. M.Rahman/ (Mridula Mishra, J) 4