IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13400 of 2006 BALMIKI SHARMA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 12- 15.10.2009 Heard Mr. Manik Vedsen for the petitioners, Mr. Rajni Kant Mishra, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.X for respondent no.1, and Mr.Shivaji Pandey for respondent nos. 2 to 6. The three petitioners have joined this writ petition making a common prayer to set aside the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bihar State Seed Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’), bearing no.99/10, dated 25.2.2006, whereby the services of the three petitioners have been dispensed with after recalling the order regularizing their services. The respondent Corporation has placed on record its counter affidavit and has supported the impugned action. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. According to the writ petition, the three petitioners were engaged on daily wages by order dated 13.10.1983 (Annexure 1). Petitioner no.1 was so engaged by order dated 25.9.92 (Annexure 2); petitioner no.2 was so engaged by order dated 1.9.92 (Annexure 3), and petitioner no.3 was similarly engaged in or around that time. It is further stated in the writ petition that one post of Junior Legal Officer, and 34 posts of Store Keepers were approved by the Board of Directors in 1986. Petitioner no.1 was given acting charge of Junior Legal Officer, and petitioners no. 2 and 3 were similarly given acting charge of Store Keepers. The Corporation - 2 - issued advertisement dated 6.6.87 (annexure 20), inviting applications to fill up the vacant posts. The petitioners were also applicants. The petitioners along with others were directed to appear for test and interview on 5.7.87. They appeared at the written test. By its resolution passed on 4.6.88, the Board of Directors resolved to fill up the vacant posts by daily rated workers who had rendered service for more than one year. It is further stated in the writ petition that the State Government, by its letter dated 24.7.89 (Annexure 4), had directed the Corporation to fill up 34 vacant posts of Store Keepers expeditiously. Notwithstanding the entire process having been followed, the Corporation did not take steps to fill up 34 posts, and did not take step to regularise the services of the petitioners. However, the petitioners continued to function on daily wages. 2.1) Some of the similarly circumstanced persons moved the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by preferring CWJC No. 2185 of 1991 ®, which was disposed of by order dated 14.1.98 (Annexure 19), whereby the respondent authorities were directed to make payment of the salary to the petitioners in the minimum pay scale and take steps for regularization of their services. The Board of Directors passed its resolution on 5.2.99, in compliance of the order of the High Court extending the benefit of minimum pay scale to daily wage employees including the petitioners till their regularization. This was followed by order dated 31.1.05 (Annexures 9 and 10), by which the Managing Director of the Corporation passed orders for regularization of the services of the three petitioners who formally - 3 - joined on substantive basis on 1.2.2005. The permanent incumbent passed order dated 2.12.2005 (Annexure 12), calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why their regularization be not treated as irregular and their services be not dispensed with. The petitioners filed detailed show cause leading to the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they started working way back in 1982-83, and have continued to function as such till the impugned order was passed on 7.8.2006. They are now left with a few years of service and cannot, therefore, be expected to leave at this age. He next submits that the impugned order does not assign reasons. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondents in the counter affidavit, or during the course of oral submissions, are completely devoid of merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has supported the impugned action. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers way back in 1982/1983 and continued to function as such till the impugned order was passed. It further appears that the initial stage of Corporation’s prosperity declined, and the Corporation reached a stage of absence of work, indiscipline, and strike, as a result of which it was left with no work and no income. It was, therefore, constrained to review the entire position and take remedial measures. - 4 - It is manifest that the services of as many as 128 daily wagers were dispensed with and the three petitioners alone survived the dragnet in the circumstances indicated hereinbelow. 6. The petitioners became the favourites of Noorul Ahad who was in a junior position of Seed Development Officer and, in the event of retirement of the permanent incumbent, was made the acting Managing Director of the Corporation till such time the permanent appointments were made. It was during this period that he weaved the conspiracy for different illegal acts including regularization of the three petitioners. We must first of all notice the office orders both dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure A), passed by Dr. Noorul Ahad, in the capacity of the Company Secretary, whereby he noticed the days of penury of the Corporation and took the decision to dispense with the services of the three petitioners. The order had taken effect. However, as soon as Nurul Ahad was made Acting Managing Director on 3.1.2005, he regularized the services of the three petitioners. This has to be read with a large number of contemporaneous documents brought on record by the Corporation to prove that all the relevant papers with respect to regularization of the petitioners except the final order of appointment are completely missing from the office of the Corporation. After Noorul Ahad ceased to be the Acting Managing Director of the Corporation, and the permanent incumbent had taken over, they detected his misdeeds during the period he had functioned as Acting Managing Director which led to service of a charge-sheet on him. One of the charges was regularization of the three petitioners - 5 - which was done without following the prescribed procedure and without taking into account the financial condition of the Corporation and the job requirement. After conclusion of a validly conducted departmental proceeding, Noorul Ahad was dismissed from the service of the Corporation. He challenged the same by preferring CWJC No. 11657 of 2007 (Dr. Noorul Ahad v State of Bihar & Ors.), which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.6.2008 (Annexure O). The learned single Judge has in particular dealt with Charge No.3 relating to regularization of the services of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “The 3rd charge was that while officiating as Managing Director and when he was not the notified Managing Director under any formal orders of the State Government and when there was ban on appointment in such corporations by the Government, the petitioner had passed orders on 31.1.2005 for regularizing service of three daily wage employees as regular employees.” The learned single Judge had concluded by observing that “.. in view of the gravity of the charges, it is not possible to hold that the punishment imposed is disproportionate or is shocking to the judicial conscience. Hence this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.” 7. It is thus evident that the Corporation never intended to regularize the services of the three petitioners and it was the handiwork of Dr. Noorul Ahad. Apart from the malafide action on the part of Dr Noorul Ahad to regularize the services of the three petitioners, we find adequate justification to dispense with their services for the reasons other than the dismissal of Noorul Ahad. The - 6 - Corporation passed through a very lean period for a fairly long time. It, therefore, took various administrative measures to tide over the crisis only by taking steps to dispense with the services of excess and/or indolent staff. It would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with such administrative measures on the part of the Corporation to tide over the crisis. If the Court were to interfere in such matters, the Corporation would not have shown signs of revival. 8. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl