IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 255 of 2001 Prabhat Kumar Singh, son of Sri Gopal Pd Singh, resident of Shyam Nagar Nima, P O – Shyam Nagar Nima, P S – Amas, District – Gaya - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Department of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation through the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 4 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Dudheshwar Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : M/s Prabhat Kumar Singh, SC 21 & Siddhartha Prasad, AC to AAG 9 *** 8 10.12.2010 The petitioner was appointed as Mapak on temporary basis on 18.09.1987 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Siwan. It appears that the matter was then referred to the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar who extended the services, inter alia, of the petitioner till further orders by order dated 13.05.1988. In 1998, petitioner was issued a show cause that in course of scrutiny, it was found that he was illegally appointed and why his services should not be terminated and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 14.10.2000, his services were terminated. The petitioner challenges this order of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Government of Bihar, Patna In the counter affidavit, it has been stated, as is also apparent from the impugned order, that with effect from 11.06.1986, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar 2 issued directions to stop all recruitments inspite of which petitioner’s recruitment was done on or about 18.09.1987. It was further stated, as also in the notice, that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had been given power to appoint temporarily on 16.02.1978 which power stood withdrawn on 02.12.1983. On these facts, it is submitted by the State that not only were appointments prohibited but the appointing authority had no authority to make such appointment and, thus, the appointment was clearly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was employed in 1987 and his services are being terminated after almost 13 years of continuous service. His service book was also opened and for all purposes, he was being treated as a permanent employee being given due increments etc. It would be highly inequitous to throw out the petitioner on road at this stage. In fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioner, I must notice that he has placed reliance on several Division Bench judgment of this Court and the Apex Court in that regard. He submits that at best, his appointment was irregular and that being so, he is liable to be considered for regularisation. State, on the other hand, has brought to the notice of this Court, inter alia, two Division Bench judgments, one in the case of State of Bihar –Versus- Prashant Kumar Sharma since reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 27 and another a very recent judgment in the case of State of Bihar and others –Versus- Sheo Shankar and another since reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 363. In fairness to counsel for both the sides, I must also 3 notice that all the judgments relied on by both the sides are dealing with similar appointment in the same Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Amrendra Prasad Yadav –Versus- State of Bihar and others being CWJC No 7766 of 2003 decided on 30th March, 2010 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court has elaborately dealt with the matter of similar appointment and has directed the respondents to consider the case of regularisation of petitioners therein. It is further observed that in case it is found that the appointment is illegal and it is not a case for regularisation then Department must institute prosecution against not only officers, who were responsible for the appointment but officers who let the person continue to work as well. I have examined all the judgments. Each judgment is on the peculiar facts as found in the case. In cases, where the case of petitioner for regularisation was ordered or termination interfered with, they were cases where either the appointment was made prior to the ban in the appointments or prior to cessation of power to appoint. In the case of Amrendra Prasad Yadav (supra), Court also found that though a bald statement had been made in the counter affidavit that the person responsible for making appointment was being prosecuted, factually it was not correct. Those persons were not proceeded against. In the present case, the fact is that both the appointing authority had no power when appointment was made nor appointments were permissible to be made at the time when petitioner was appointed. Further, State has already instituted criminal prosecution against the Special Land 4 Acquisition Officer, Siwan as well as the then Director who were both instrumental in petitioner’s illegal appointment. Thus, on these facts, I find that the two decisions relied on by the State that is State of Bihar – Versus- Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra) and State of Bihar –Versus- Sheo Shankar and another (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present case and no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, as petitioner has become an unsuspecting victim of illegalities committed by officers, in the peculiar facts of this case, I would order that if and when State decides to fill up the vacancy of similar post at the position held by the petitioner, petitioner’s case would be considered keeping in view his past working experience in the Department itself and giving age relaxation. This is the only limited relief that can be granted to the petitioner on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)