IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1580 of 2004 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 2/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the termination of their services by separate orders dated all dated 6.1.2004. The impugned order purports to be passed on the premise that the order of appointment of the petitioners was void ab initio and illegal, inasmuch as, no advertisement, interview or reservation roster was followed. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to impress upon the Court that the petitioners were appointed in July and August, 1988 and therefore it was unjust and inequitable at this juncture to terminate their services. An additional feature has also been pointed out with regard to petitioner No.2 from Annexure-6 to the brief. This Court is satisfied that the two petitioners stand in a separate categories. It appears that the services of petitioner No.2 were dispensed with earlier on 3.11.1990 when he came to be reappointed on 22.11.1990 That this termination was on the same grounds as presently sought to be urged is more than apparent from counter affidavit of the respondents which does not urge any more with regard to the termination order dated 3.11.1990 so as to differentiate the same from the present order of termination. Actions of the State must have a certainty and finality. The Government cannot be permitted to act whimsically in - 2 - different manner at different times. Nothing has been brought on record in the counter affidavit to suggest any fresh directions subsequent to 22.11.1990 reinstating petitioner No.2. This Court is satisfied, insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the question of validity of his appointment ends with the order of his reinstatement on 22.11.1990. The impugned order does not take the same into consideration at all, neither was it the subject matter of the show cause issued to petitioner No.2. The writ application has, therefore, to be allowed insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned and the order of termination dated 6.1.2004 is therefore set aside. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, this Court finds that his case was referred amongst others to a three men committee. It appears that the committee was disbanded without an enquiry report. This Court considers it proper to dispose off this writ application with directions to the respondent State Government that once it had constituted a committee, and when no valid reasons have been urged in the counter affidavit for disbandment of the same and neither has the fact of the constitution of the committee been denied, let the respondents examine the case of petitioner No.1 and take a fresh decision with regard to him in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner No.1 requests for a personal hearing, this Court expects that the same shall be favourably considered by the respondents. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )