IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.467 of 2010 1. GIRIWAR LAL PODDAR S/O LATE MOTILAL PODDAR R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. AND P.S.- SIRASI, DISTT.- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PURNEA ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh. For the State :- Mr. Sunil Kumr Mandal, S.C. XV & Mr. Bipin Kumar. ----- 4 09/12/2010 It has been a long drawn battle for the petitioner. As per his assertion, though the petitioner joined the service as daily wager in the office of the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea but subsequently his services came to be regularised against the vacant sanctioned post which was of Ward Attendant. Petitioner started working in Government Hospital, Sirasi in the district of Purnea. It is his contention that his services came to be regularised in terms of the decision rendered by the Director, Health services as would be evident from annexure-3 to the writ application. However, despite serving for a long period of time, he was issued a - 2 - notice by the Civil Surgeon, Purnea on 9.4.2004 and his service was terminated with immediate effect on the ground of so called illegality or irregularity. Many a persons similarly situated came to this Court. Matter travelled to the Division Bench and the Division Bench disposed of those set of writ applications with a direction to the respondents to constitute a five Member Committee to look into grievance of each and every petitioners or employee in question. Pursuant to the said direction case of the petitioner too was considered by the Five Member Committee and their finding or recommendation has been brought on record as annexure-7 to the writ application. Name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 48 and the comment with regard to his appointment indicates that the Committee found the appointment of the petitioner to be irregular. Contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that irregularity cannot be a ground for termination because irregularity has not been committed at the level of petitioner but at the level of the respondents and the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong. There is no dispute that the - 3 - petitioner’s service was regularized by the Director, Health Services and corresponding orders have been issued in this regard years ago. Thereafter petitioner has worked continuously and has drawn the benefit of service all along without any hitch or without any objection. The stand of the respondents which has struck the petitioner was raised in the year 2004. If the regularization of the petitioner was irregularity, which is also the stand of the State as indicated at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, then irregularity cannot be a ground for termination. Irregularity is amenable to cure and that defect ought to have been cured instead of terminating the petitioner from service. Findings of the Five Member Committee being what they are and the finding recorded with regard to the petitioner is of irregularity and not illegality, petitioner’s services cannot be got rid of. In that view of the matter, annexure-4 dated 9.4.2004 requires to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Prakash and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010(2) PLJR, 33 - 4 - (S.C.) to show that a person working on daily wage basis does not deserve to be absorbed in a permanent service merely because he continued beyond the time frame of his initial appointment on the strength of such continuance if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. This Court has certain reservation with regard to applicability of the said decision in the present case. It is not a case where the petitioner is seeking regularization under the State as a daily wager. It is a case of a regularized employee who has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner was made regular in an irregular manner. In view of the above set of facts, petitioner has made out a case. This writ application is accordingly allowed with a direction that the petitioner will be put back in service forthwith. Impugned order dated 9.4.2004 contained in annexure-4 is hereby quashed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)