IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14350 of 2007 BIKRAM KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BRAHMDEO PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE/MOHALLA-BHATTA BAZAR, P.S.-K.HAT, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, PURNEA DIVISION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 6. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PURNEA. 7. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KASBA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 8. THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 30.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that petitioner was terminated earlier by Annexure-14 dated 5.1.2006 on the ground that his post was of State level cadre but his appointment was made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea who had no authority to make such appointment. Petitioner moved this Court against said order through CWJC No. 2794 of 2006. The said writ application of the petitioner was considered in a batch led by LPA No. 946 of 2003 by a Division Bench. In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363 the Division Bench disposed of the batch of - 2 - cases with a direction to the respondents to constitute a High Powered Committee for scrutinizing the cases of writ petitioners. Pursuant to the said directions of the Division Bench case of the petitioner and several others were scrutinized by the High Powered Committee which submitted its report finding the appointment of petitioner as forged. The report of the Committee with the relevant pages is annexed as Annexure-16 with this writ application. Several other incumbents whose services were found illegal or forged moved this Court in separate writ applications. The said writ applications were considered by a Bench of this Court in a batch led by CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and by a considered judgment dated 6.10.2009, this Court found the said report of the High Powered Committee as illegal and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Bench quashed the report of the High Powered Committee in all those cases and consequently quashed the termination order also and directed the petitioners of the concerned cases to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The present petitioner is also aggrieved by the same report finding the petitioner’s appointment as forged. Therefore, following the judgment and ratio of this Court in its said order dated 6.10.2009 passed in said CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and other - 3 - analogous cases the writ application of the petitioner is allowed. The said report of the High Powered Committee in respect of petitioner also is quashed and the termination order of petitioner is also quashed with all consequential benefits as granted to the petitioners of the batch of the cases by the said order of this Court. Arvind/ (J.N. Singh, J.)