IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1975 of 2009 PRAKASH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 10/2/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The dispute created as with regard to appointment of the petitioner is hovering around for the last so many years. By order dated 28.6.2003 appointment of the petitioner was cancelled under the direction of the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7366 of 2003 and the said order of termination was stayed. Thereafter, the said writ application was disposed of by a common judgment disposing of a large number of writ petitions holding that continuance in service for a period of ten years or more by itself was sufficient to cure any alleged illegality except the fraudulent or forged appointment. Thereafter the State had filed appeals against the said common judgment. The appellate Court in terms did not approve the order of the Single Judge 2 and had disposed of a large number of appeal including appeal filed against the judgment of the petitioner along with a bunch of writ petitions by giving certain direction as would be apparent from the order of the Division Bench dated 26.6.2006. Pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench a committee is said to have examined the cases and thereafter in the light of the findings of the committee the impugned order dated 3.1.2009 as contained in Annexure-17 has been passed by the Civil Surgeon holding appointment of the petitioner to be illegal. That is how the petitioner has again moved this Court. From the pleadings on record it is not clear as to what was the finding of the committee in respect of the petitioner. It is also not clear as to what was the methodology adopted by the committee. The petitioner has made a grievance that after the order was passed by this Court on 26.6.2006 he had not been given any opportunity to explain his case and infact has all of a sudden been served 3 with the impugned order dated 3.1.2009. In the opinion of this court the procedure adopted by the Respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be approved. Essentially, some one has to look into actual aspect of the matter. The earlier order of termination of service of the petitioner was quashed by this Court and thus when the division bench had remitted the matter to a committee of the officials, its conclusion before being acted upon had to be communicated to the petitioner for eliciting his response. That having been not done, the impugned order is in teeth of principle of natural justice. In that view of the matter the whole issue is remitted to the Secretary of the Health Department because the Director in Chief had earlier dealt with the individual case of the petitioner in capacity of a member of the Committee. As such it would be in the interest of justice that individual case of the petitioner is examined afresh by the Secretary of the Health Department himself 4 in the light of materials on record which may be either brought by the petitioner himself or the department. As the petitioner has been reeling for last six years under the threat/uncertainty of continuance in service, it would be necessary that the final decision is taken by the Secretary in a fixed time frame. That being so, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation to the Secretary of the department wherein the petitioner may enclose all his relevant document by way of evidence and the Secretary upon receipt of the said representation along with a copy of this order must pass a firm, clear and speaking order considering the individual case of the petitioner in isolation within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar 5