CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10159 OF 1997 With CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 10166 OF 1997 ------ In the matter of application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ------- GAUTAM KUMAR BANERJEE SON OF SHRI BIDHU SHEKHAR BANERJEE RESIDENT OF SATISH SARKAR LANE, MASAK CHAUK, P.O. BHAGALPUR, P.S. BHAGALPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, BHAGALPUR REGION, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFIER, BHAGALPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. With CWJC No.10166 of 1997 SIKANDAR MANDAL SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINDHIYAN, P.O. DURGAPUR, P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, BHAGALPUR REGION, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFIER, BHAGALPUR DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ------- For The Petitioner :MR. YOGENDRA MISHRA,SR. ADVOCATE & - 2 - MR. RAMESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the State : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Chaubey, (GP7) ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J. Both these writ applications arise out of similar circumstances and both of them have met the same fate which is termination from service on the ground of illegal appointment made by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Bhagalpur. In both the cases the order of termination is dated 15.07.1997 which has been brought on record as annexure-6 to the two writ applications. By virtue of the said impugned order large number of persons, whose names figure in the said order, came to be terminated on the ground that the appointments have come to be made illegally without following the procedure and primarily the Regional Director did not have the requisite authority to make appointment on Class III and IV posts. Many a submissions have been made in support of the present writ applications assailing the order of dismissal but since this Court has the benefit of a - 3 - decision which has been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an identical situation, it will be a wastage of time to take note of all those submissions afresh and consider the matter of these two petitioners in isolation. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC, 65. In an identical situation order of termination passed by the State for certain set of employees appointed on Class III & IV posts became subject matter of challenge before the High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ application and ordered reinstatement. Such order was upheld even by the Division Bench but the Apex Court set aside both the decisions, allowed the S.L.P. by a well considered decision rendered in the case which has been brought to the attention of this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the matter from every facets did come to a conclusion that appointments made in gross violation or doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be - 4 - sustained and no direction can be issued for their reinstatement. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the decision of the Supreme Court requires no comment but he tries to overcome the obstacle created by the said decision by taking cue from the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 44 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC, 1. According to him if the State decides to make appointment on the posts, if they are vacant, on a regular basis as a one time measure, case of these petitioners ought to be considered on its own merit since the petitioners have reached such a stage or point of their life where there is no looking back. Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s (Supra) case is already there and if the petitioners can derive benefit from the same, this Court will not come in the way but over and above what has been recorded by the Supreme Court on that issue, the Court has nothing more to observe for these petitioners as such. If at all, the respondent State decides to take - 5 - one time measure to fill up the vacancies, there is no bar to the petitioners’ participation in such an exercise merely because they came to be terminated vide annexure-6 issued in the year 1997 but then they will have to fulfill all the requirements of such a recruitment along with rest of the lot. They cannot get any superior right for consideration merely because they had worked under the respondents for a while before they came to be terminated. Both the writ applications have no merit in the above stated circumstance and they are dismissed but without any cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, The 24th August, 2010. AMIN/ (N.A.F.R.)