IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.175 of 2004 RAVI KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BHAVESH CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOUNI, P.S. TAZAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY- CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENRERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (C.I.D.), BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (H.R.), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE © C.I.D. BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Sudha Kumari For the Respondents :- Mr. V. M. K. Sinha, S.C. III ------- 7 01/07/2010 Petitioner is one of the persons who happened to be dismissed from service by virtue of the order dated 26.09.2003. Order is annexure-6 to the writ application and the petitioner wants quashing of the said order in so far as it relates to him. Similar or many other persons were also terminated from the post of Constable because they happened to be appointed by the then Director General of Police in the so called exercise of his discretionary power or consideration. Even in the case of the present petitioner it is not in - 2 - dispute that he was appointed on the recommendation of the Director General of Police by even waiving the minimum requirements in terms of physical fitness. A waiver of 3 cms. in height was granted in his favour and he came to be appointed to the post. Initial appointment was on the post of temporary constable with effect from 25.01.1992. Large scale illegal appointment came to the notice of the government and it became subject matter of enquiry. All those persons were identified and removed thereafter for being illegally appointed without following the due process of law which included the Police Act as well as the rules under the Police Manual. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be faulted for his appointment. The appointment was made alright at the intervention of the Director General of Police but then the power was exercised by the authority. Even though benefit could have accrued to him but he had no role to play in final decision of appointment. Other aspect that the petitioner pleads is of having worked for many a years and has a family to take care. His removal from service after so many years - 3 - has serious consequences for him and his family. Petitioner has also brought on record an order of the Supreme Court passed in a case which is annexure-8 where the apex Court ordered reinstatement of service because the said appellant had continued in service for almost nine years. Stand of the State is that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal per say. The appointments came to be made by the then Director General of police in total breach of all powers and authority by giving a go-bye to the settled process or procedure. He came to exercise powers where none was vested in him. Attention of the Court was drawn to the provisions of Rule 661(b) of the Bihar Police Manual which categorically lays down that the power of appointment of a constable is vested in the District Superintendent of Police and the appointment is to be made by a Board duly constituted in this regard. There is no provision from where it can be inferred that merely because the Director General of Police is head of the institution, powers are vested in him or he is the monarch of all he surveys. Case of the petitioner was not unique. Several other persons who were similarly - 4 - placed have also been removed because an illegal act cannot be allowed to be continued and persons allowed to derive benefit under gross violation of the constitutional provisions and the rules. Attention of the Court is also drawn to a case decided by the learned Single Judge which is the case of Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Bihar an others reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 717 where it has been categorically held that the Director of General of Police has no power to make appointment of constables. When a power is vested in a particular authority, then that authority alone has right to exercise that power. No other authority, however high he may be, can usurp the jurisdiction or exercise that power merely by virtue of holding a post. Law being what it is, allowing the petitioner to be reinstated and continued in service on humanitarian considerations would be allowing an illegality in perpetuity. Court is also concerned about all those other citizens who have been patiently waiting for a break in life by seeking appointment under the State provided there is a general advertisement and a notice in this regard is published. - 5 - Obviously appointments resorted to by such a high functionary in such a clandestine manner has marred the prospects and hopes of many who could have atleast been given a chance for consideration. The Court, therefore, is not enthusiased to come to the rescue of the petitioner and interfere with the order of dismissal passed against him in terms of annexure-6. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)