IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.982 of 2009 1. RANJEET KUMAR, SON OF SRI SURENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. – SOYRA, VIA – DALSINGSARAI, P.S. – DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. 2. KUMAR JAYSHANKAR, SON OF SRI BHAGAWAT PRASAD THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, WARD NO. 22, P.S. – KHAGARIA, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. ……………… APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Joint Development Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusaria. …………… Respondents / Respondents. ----------- 03/ 15.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The writ Court has dismissed the writ petition of the two appellants by judgment and order under appeal dated 19.05.2009. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. Pursuant to an advertisement relating to appointment on contract basis for various posts including the post of Clerk-cum- Typist, the applicants faced written as well as practical tests. The appellants were appointed on the post of Clerk-cum- Typist by virtue of the order dated 05.10.2007. A writ petition bearing CWJC No. 13988 of 2007 was preferred by some unsuccessful - 2 - candidates challenging the selection and appointment process. On being satisfied that the principles laid down for selection by the competent authority had not been followed in preparing a result and making appointments, by a short order dated 11.09.2008 that writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “In compliance of my order dated 03.09.2008, Principal Secretary of the Department is present. He states that order removing those, who had been appointed with zero marks in the competency test, have already been issued and implemented. Other appointees, who have secured less than three marks in the competency test and yet appointed contrary to the decision contained in Annexure – E to the counter affidavit, along with all others, who have secured less than three marks in the competency test, will be given yet another opportunity to appear in the competency test and if they secure minimum 3 marks in the fresh competency test then their case shall be considered for appointment against the available vacancies. In the light of the aforesaid statement of the learned Principal Secretary, this writ application is disposed of with direction that fresh competency test be conducted and result announced within two months from today.” It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order was the 19th order passed in the writ petition and apparently all relevant materials had been considered earlier. The tone and tenor of that order shows that the stand of the authorities was that the norms of selection were not followed and while those who had been appointed with Zero marks in the competency test had already been removed, there was a decision in contemplation in respect of those also who had secured less than three marks in the competency test and yet they had been appointed contrary to the decision contained in Annexure – E to the counter - 3 - affidavit in that case. In such circumstances, the writ court disposed of the writ petition being CWJC No. 13988 of 2007 with a direction to give an opportunity to all such candidates, who secured less than three marks in the competency test, to appear in a fresh competency test and if they succeeded in securing minimum three marks in such fresh test then their cases were to be considered for appointment against the available vacancies. From paper advertisement contained in Annexure – 8 as well as from the admit card of one of the appellants annexed as Annexure – 9 to the memo of appeal, it is clear that order in CWJC No. 13988 of 2007 was made public but none of the parties challenged that order of this Court and the same was implemented. The candidates who had secured less than three marks in the competency test (Practical) including the appellants took the re-test and from the records it appears that the appellants secured Zero in such test and as a result, by the order challenged in the writ petition and annexed to this appeal as Annexure – 10, dated 31.12.2008, the appointment letters were cancelled of those who were unsuccessful in the fresh competency skill test with a direction to the concerned Deputy Development Commissioners to pay the honorarium for the period the employees had worked and to send compliance report that their services have been terminated. The writ Court has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter including the main issue advanced before us that since the - 4 - appellants had been appointed, they could not have been removed even after they had submitted to re-test, without following principles of natural justice which required giving show cause notice for their removal. It is well known that Natural Justice is not an unruly horse which may even defeat justice. So far as principles of natural justice are concerned, in the facts of the case it required that the action of the authorities must be fair, based upon relevant considerations and if fairness is not ensured, such action is liable to be reviewed. In the present case, the consequences are on account of an order of this Court which has already been extracted earlier. The department had no option but to follow that order because nobody challenged the same. Its consequences cannot be challenged on the ground that they are not in accordance with principles of natural justice or fairness. In case any of the concerned employees had reservations against the aforesaid earlier judgment and order of this Court, he was required to challenge that order either in appeal or through a review petition. That having not been done, we find that in the facts of the case, the respondents were obliged to act as per the said judgment of this Court and otherwise also, as the marks obtained by the appellant show no interference is required to be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction in favour of candidates who, on re-test in the practical aspect of typing, have secured Zero marks, any interference will amount to perpetuating an illegality which must be avoided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. - 5 - For all the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed but without costs. Kundan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)