IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3221 of 2008 KALLAR PASWAN S/O SRI PHUSHU PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE & P.O.-NAYAGAON, P.S-RABHIYAN, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MILITARY POLICE (NORTH ZONE), MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-13, DARBHANGA. ………….Respondents with CWJC No.3643 of 2008 RAM BILASH PASWAN S/O LATE KESHI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-& P.O.- NAYAGAON, P.S. RABHIYAN (KEVTI), DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MILITARY POLICE (NORTH ZONE), MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-13, DARBHANGA. ………….Respondents ----------- 02 07.04.2011 Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Memo Nos. 67 and 68 dated 24.01.2007 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (North Zone) Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioners have been terminated from service, where they were working as constable, on the ground that the initial appointment was made without following the provisions of Rules 661 and 663 of the Police Manual. It is admitted fact that petitioners have worked for 32 years without there being any allegation or adverse report through out their - 2 - career of 32 years. The appointment of the petitioners were made on the recommendation of the Inspector General of Police under special circumstances, wherein a notice was published in the daily newspaper that Naxalites who surrender, will be given jobs in accordance with their qualification and merit. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga recommended that the petitioners should be absorbed in service. As stated earlier, the petitioners have rendered satisfactory service in the police force since their appointment made in the year 1972. The impugned order as well as the counter affidavit indicates the ground for termination that the petitioners were appointed without following the provisions of the Police Manual. It has been stated that the petitioner Kallar Paswan had also moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3751 of 2004 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2004. However liberty was given to the petitioner Kallar Paswan to pursue the appeal that he had filed against the order dated 22.09.2003. The order passed in appeal is contained in Annexure-1, which is under challenged before this Court. Counsel for the petitioners refers to a decision of this Court passed in (Zakir Hussain Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors) C.W.J.C. No. 11842 of 2003 which was disposed of on 02.02.2007. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of termination on the ground that the petitioner in that case had worked for 30 years and during the period of his service he was promoted from the post of Hawaldar to a higher post. At the time, when he was promoted, the State who had an opportunity to examine all the facts and circumstances surrounding the - 3 - petitioner’s appointment, did not take into account the reasons given by them for terminating the petitioner. The said order of termination has been passed when the petitioner is on the verge of retirement which makes the case of these petitioners different from those persons who have been appointed without following any procedure whatsoever for selection. In the present case, there was an advertisement indicating that those Naxalites who will surrender before the Chief Minister would be entitled to be absorbed in service according to their qualification. The fact that the advertisement was restricted to a particular class of persons, however, would not make the entire transaction illegal, it is not a case, where there was no advertisement and the entire transaction was done in order to give benefit to the person concerned. This is also not a case of a back door entry, rather it is a case where conscious decision was taken by the State Government to appoint certain class of persons and, therefore, it cannot be said to be completely illegal or baseless. In the facts and circumstances described above, this Court quashes the order contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 dated 24.01.2007 of both the cases, which is the order of termination and directs that the petitioners should be reinstated with all consequential benefits in service within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. These applications are thus allowed. Safik (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)