IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17051 of 2009 ====================================================== Neelam Devi W/O Late Uma Ram R/O Vill.- Ghoghardiha, P.S.- Ghoghardiha, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director-In-Chief Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Distt.- Madhubani 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17246 of 2009 ====================================================== Radha Devi W/O Sri Ganesh Ram R/Ovill Ghoghardiha, Mehtar Tola, P.O.Ghoghardiha, Ps.Ghoghardiha, Distt-Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health Governement Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director -In-Chief Health Service Governement Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director , Health Services Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4. The Civil Surgeon- Cum - Chief Medical Officer Distt-Madhubani 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Ghoghardiha, Distt- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17587 of 2009 ====================================================== Jeebachh Sahu S/O Shri Pramod Sahu R/O Vill Brahmpura, P.O.Ghoghardiha, P.S.Phulparas, Distt-Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat ,Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department Of Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Health Government Of Bihar, Patna Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 2 / 9 2 4. The Director , Health Services Government Of Bihar,Patna 5. The Deputy Director , Health Services Government Of Bihar,Patna 6. The Civil Surgeon-Cum -Chief Medical Officer Madhubani 7. The Incharge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Ghoghardiha,Distt-Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17599 of 2009 ====================================================== Bhikhari Mandal S/O Late Shri Dukhi Mandal R/O Vill And Po- Ghoghardiha, P.S- S.Phulparas, Distt- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Cief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department Of Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare,. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Madhubani 7. The Incharge, Medical Officer, Primary Helath Centre Ghoghardiha, Distt- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17657 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Late Shri Suba Lal Yadav R/O Vill.- Inerwa, P.O. Jageshwar Asthan, P.S. Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani 2. Vimla Devi W/O Shri Anil Kumar Yadav R/O Vill.- Inerwa, P.O. Jageshwar Asthan, P.S. Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani 3. Rajdhar Yadav S/O Late Shri Bhagwat Yadav R/O Vill. And P.O. Basuari, P.S. Goghardiha, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Health Medical Education And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, Distt.- Madhubani Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 3 / 9 3 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18427 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Narendra Kumar Rai S/O Shri Sukhsagar Rai R/O Vill Bhaptiyahi, P.S- Laukahi, Distt-Madhubani 2. Kashi Nath Rai S/O Sharda Nand Rai R/O Vill-Bhaptiyahi, P.S- Laukahi, Distt- Madhubani 3. Gajendra Kumar Rai S/O Shri Pawan Rai R/O Vill- Bhaptiyahi, P.S- Laukahi, Distt- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt.Of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Health Services, Govt, Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 7. The Incharge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, Distt- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.17051 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag10) (In CWJC No.17246 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc18) (In CWJC No.17587 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc3) (In CWJC No.17599 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc4) (In CWJC No.17657 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 4 / 9 4 Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp12) (In CWJC No.18427 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 03/ 13-10-2011 Heard counsel appearing in all six cases on behalf of the petitioners as well as Respondent-State. Petitioners in all these writ applications were appointed on Class III post either in the year, 1988 or 1989 by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. They continued on their post till the date termination order was issued. In case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17051 of 2009, 17246 of 2009, 17587 of 2009 and 17599 of 2009 vide Memo No. 2494 dated 30.10.2001 under the signature of Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani and in case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 17657 of 2009 and 18427 of 2009 vide order contained in Memo No. 1168 dated 14.6.2001. Termination order has been issued against the petitioners on the ground that their appointment letters have not been issued by the then Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. Since petitioners remained in service for more than 10 years without any objection Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 5 / 9 5 or intervention and were removed suddenly from their posts even without any show cause, they all challenged termination order by filing separate writ applications. All these writ applications were heard analogous with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Merit of their writ applications were not considered by the Division Bench, simply a direction was issued to the respondent-authorities of the State for constituting Five Men Committee to examine individual cases of petitioners in each writ application and pass order with regard to their appointment in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. In present writ applications petitioners have challenged their termination order issued in the year, 2001 vide different memo numbers by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, as well as the report submitted by the Five Men Committee, in compliance of the direction in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Termination order has also been challenged on the ground that it is completely illegal, being violative of rule of natural justice. So far, report of Five Men Committee is concerned; it has also been challenged on the ground that ignoring the direction of the Division Bench, report has been submitted as individual cases of the petitioners were not considered. The Division Bench had referred the matter to Five Men Committee to examine their Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 6 / 9 6 individual cases, giving them proper opportunity of hearing, considering relevant documents, but it was not done. The Five Men Committee did not conduct enquiry properly, as per the direction of Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. This was the reason that out of Five Members, two abstained from participating in the enquiry and in the name of Five Men Committee only three members actually conducted the enquiry and submitted a report, which is completely arbitrary as well as violative of rule of natural justice. No notice was issued to the petitioners at any point of time. They were not given any opportunity to defend their cases and actually an ex-parte enquiry was conducted in their absence. Report was submitted, without looking into any relevant documents or examining any of the authorities responsible for issuing appointment letters in favour of petitioners, and their appointments were heldto be forged. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on similar grounds already in different cases the enquiry report submitted by the Five Men Committee has been quashed. This issue has already been decided in L.P.A. No. 1665 of 2010. The Division placing reliance on a recent Apex Court decision reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari8 & Ors.) in which also the earlier Apex Court decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 7 / 9 7 Devi has been considered, has quashed the finding recorded in the enquiry report that appointments are illegal and forged. In the judgment of Apex Court in (2010) 9 SCC 247 the observation is also follows:- “The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Uma Devi is two fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of court or tribunals, before the date of decision in Uma Devi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 8 / 9 8 and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Uma Devi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Uma Devi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above direction in Uma Devi as a one time measure.” I find that the Division Bench judgment is fully applicable in case of these petitioners as their appointments have been found to be forged completely in violation of the rule of natural justice and completely ignoring the observation and direction made in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi as Patna High Court CWJC No.17051 of 2009 (3) dt.13-10-2011 9 / 9 9 well as State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. Petitioners have completed more than ten years of service prior to 10.04.2006 without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal. They were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts and possessed requisite qualification for that. So far finding recorded in report that their appointments being forged, is concerned, there was no proper enquiry for coming to this conclusion, as such it cannot be held to be illegal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the termination orders issued in against the petitioners as well as report submitted by the Five Men Committee in the light of the direction in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 that their appointments are forged, are quashed. All these writ applications are allowed, directing the respondents to reinstate all these petitioners on their respective posts with all consequential benefits. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)