IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2145 of 2004 RAMANAND SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the State: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, AC to GA-3 ***** 09. 01.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel, appearing on behalf of State. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of Order, contained in Memo No. 1345/C, dated 08.09.2003, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj, whereby after 13 years of his service, petitioner has been terminated. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate him on the post of Constable with all consequential benefits. Admitted case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Constable on temporary basis in the year 1990 under special circumstance by the S.P., Special Branch, vide Memo No. 5246 (C), dated 22.08.1990. In pursuance to the order, contained in Memo No. 5931, dated 21.08.1990, issued under the signature of Assistant to I.G. (Welfare), Bihar, Patna. The appointment letter of the petitioner indicates that he was 2 appointed on compassionate ground for being serviceable to one of the retired Police Officer. In the Writ Application, it has not been stated by the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground being legal heir of a Police personnel, who died in harness. For compassionate appointment, it is essential that only those legal heirs of a Government employee, who dies in harness, whose reference has been made in the circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, regarding to compassionate appointment, could be appointed in such special circumstance. Considering this fact, petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate ground as he was not a legal heir of deceased employee, who died in harness and thus eligible of being appointed on compassionate ground. It is true that despite being illegally appointed, petitioner continued in service for 13 years and also had undergone training while in service. However, in the year 2002, vide Memo No. 6334, dated 25.10.2002, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the signature of S.P. (Security), Special Branch, Bihar, Patna, as to why he should not be 3 terminated from his service for the reason that his appointment had been made without following the procedure provided under Rule 661 (B) of the Bihar Police Manual. Petitioner submitted his show-cause, giving reference to the special circumstances, mentioned in his appointment letter and also stated about his continuity in service for 13 years, so that show-cause may be considered sympathetically. Show-cause filed by the petitioner, was found unsatisfactory and vide order contained in Memo No. 1345, dated 08.09.2003, he was terminated from his service. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the DIG, Purnea Range and that remained pending till filing of the Writ Application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if Rule 661(B) of the Bihar Police Manual is to be taken into consideration, it provided that the Constable shall be appointed by District Superintendent of Police, for which list will be prepared by the Selection Board, duly constituted for the purpose. In his case also, a Selection Committee was constituted and on recommendation of Selection Committee, the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj had appointed the petitioner. What is not stated by 4 the petitioner that such Selection Committee was properly constituted for recommending appointment against existing vacancies, in case such vacancies were available, those were duly advertised, inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The recommendation could have been made by duly constituted Selection Board only, when other procedures would have been followed since that was not done and the petitioner was appointed in a special circumstance on compassionate ground, for which the Selection Committee could not have recommended his name. In the Counter Affidavit, filed by the State, it has been mentioned that the petitioner’s appointment was completely an illegal appointment in violation of Rule 661(B) of Bihar Police Manual. The petitioner was properly given opportunity to submit his show-cause. It was found unsatisfactory and accordingly, he was terminated. I find that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal at the initial stage itself. Even though he remained in service for 13 years and had undergone training during this period, neither his length of service nor the training, which he received, can 5 make his appointment legal. The appointment being illegal from its inception could not have been allowed to continue, once detected by the authorities. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain the situation by filing show-cause as such opportunity was also assigned to him before termination of his service. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, this application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)