IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3886 of 2010 1. SHAILENDRA MISHRA S/O LATE SATYADEV NARAYAN MISHRA R/O COURT COMPOUND AURANGABAD, SADAR AURANGABAD, DISTT.- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE ADMINISTRATOR BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD (ABOLISHED), PANT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2. 19.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner who was appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) under office order dated 14.5.1991, Annexure-3 has filed this writ application questioning the validity of the order bearing Memo No. 5075 dated 9th October, 2009, Annexure-11 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government in the Agriculture Department, whereunder his services have been dispensed with on the ground that his initial appointment was contrary to the provisions contained in Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board Employees Service Condition Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) as his appointment was not made by the Committee constituted under Rule 58 of the Rules. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Board has since been dissolved by enacting Bihar Agriculture Produce Market(Repeal) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the services of the employees serving the Board on the date of enactment of the Act have been taken over by - 2 - the State Government and the services of the petitioner ought to have been taken over along with other employees of the Board but after 18 years of appointment his services are being terminated on the ground that his initial appointment was violative of the Rules. In the case of Mahesh Prasad Singh, Dinesh Prasad Singh bearing C.W.J.C.No. 7346 of 2009 and 7365 of 2009, Annexure-14 the Division Bench of this Court under orders dated 9.12.2009 considered the scope of Section 6 of the Act and with reference to the said provision it was said that illegalities in the initial appointment of the employees of the Board cannot be looked into at the time of their take over by the State Government in terms of the provisions of the Act and in the light of such legal position the order refusing to regularize Mahesh Prasad Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh and others was set aside. Similar view was taken in the case of Pankaj Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh by this Court under orders dated 25.01.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 17826, 17973 of 2009 which is contained in Annexure-15 to this application and with reference to the aforesaid two orders, Annexures 14 and 15 it is submitted that the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009, Annexure-11 be also set aside as violative of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009, Annexure-11 is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act and is, accordingly, set aside with direction to the State Government to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Statistical Assistant as also to pay him arrears of salary with effect from the due date of take over of the other employees. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)