IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.244 of 2005 1. MEGH BAHADUR RANA, S/O RAM BAHADUR RANA, RESIDENT OF CHAUDHARY BIRLA, NEAR SRI KUNJ APARTMENT, BUDHA COLONY, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA ……………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE), DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTER, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, MILITARY POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BMP, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE COMMANDANT, BMP-19, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C), CID, BIHAR, PATNA ………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 08. 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of an Order, contained in Memo No. 86, dated 07.08.2004 (Annexure-4), whereby the Commandant, BMP-19 has terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that he had been appointed in violation of Bihar Police Manual Rules, 663 and without the approval of the Selection Committee, constituted under the Rules. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in BMP-1, Ranchi, vide Order, contained in Memo No. 1536, dated 30.03.1998, issued under the signature of the Commandant, BMP-1, Ranchi. 2 Petitioner’s appointment was made in special circumstances for the reason that he has done some commendable work of bravery. Subsequently, vide impugned order, dated 10.05.2004, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he be not terminated from his service on account of his appointment being in violation of the Rules in Police Manual. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner in support of his case has given reference of two letters, contained in Memo No. 1410, dated 19.08.1994, issued by the Government of Bihar, Home (Special) and Order of Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar, contained in Memo No. 4574, dated 24.10.2004, relating to the issue that the Rules of Bihar Police Manual being creation of the Government of Bihar in its executive side, can be overruled in some cases of exception. Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, annexing those letters and making statement that on the basis of these letters, the petitioner can not claim any advantage for the reason that these letters were issued in specific case of Kamal Chandra Sah, relaxing the 3 Rules under the Order of the Chief Minister. This was an exceptional case and in general cases, these letters can not have any application. Considering these facts and also that petitioner’s appointment admittedly was in violation of the Rules, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)