IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1316 of 2010 GOKHULANAND PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to respondent no.8 in view of the fact that his interest is sought to be adequately protected at this stage while disposing off the writ application. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to an advertisement and selection process the petitioner was appointed as Secretary Gram Kutchery on 15.10.2007 in the Muradpur Hujra, Gram Kutchery, District- Arwal under the Bihar Gram Kutchery (Employment, service conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called „the appointment rules‟). His services have been terminated by a non-speaking order dated 20.2.2009. The fact that this Court may have subsequently held that 'Madhyama' was equivalent to 'Matriculation' to be considered for appointment leading to amendment of the Appointment Rules in January, 2009 with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008 shall not affect the validity of the petitioner‟s appointment made before that date unless 2 there is any allegation of an illegal appointment. Learned counsel for the State makes the usual prayer for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit notwithstanding that two copies of the writ application were served upon the office of the Advocate General on 8.1.2010. The second copy was to facilitate filing of a counter affidavit. If the State authorities do not wake up to the urgency of assisting this Court in timely dispensation of justice, this Court has little option but to proceed in the matter leaving the State respondents to suffer the consequence of its own deficiency. This Court in more than one writ application has already held that those appointed prior to the date when the appointment rules came to be amended by a legislative exercise with retrospective effect from 31.1.2008 form part of a completed transaction and their appointments cannot be re-opened except for illegality in the appointment. The order of termination of the petitioner is unreasoned and non-speaking in nature. The giving of reasons has been held repeatedly in judicial pronouncements to be a curb on arbitrary exercise of powers. Reasons make it imperative for the authority to facilitate judicial review when the order may be tested, whether it is consistent with law or not. If the authorities insist on passing unreasoned and non-speaking orders, 3 the Court has little option but to set aside such orders. That respondent no.8 may have been considered eligible for appointment subsequently based on 'Madhyama' qualification by a retrospective legislative amendment, shall not be justification in law for illegally terminating the service of the petitioner to create a vacancy for the appointment of respondent no.8. The law stands equally settled that when the Court has pronounced on an issue by an interpretation of a law, the duty of the State is to re-examine all such matters in light of such pronouncement and accord similar treatment to all who may be similarly situated without requiring them to bring individual orders from the Court. If the authority is satisfied that a particular person was differently situated it can certainly pass orders on the issue of distinction which shall then have to be tested afresh in Court upon challenge. The Supreme Court in 2006 (9) SCC 406 (K.T. Veerappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka) has observed at paragraph-16 as follows:- “16. The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent-University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently 4 irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice- Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21-6-1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos.21487-21506/1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.” Fairness on part of the State demands action appropriate to curb litigation and not to multiply litigation by asking individual petitioner in similar matters to bring individual orders. This completely negates the National Litigation Policy framed by the Central Government in June, 2010 and in terms of which the State is obliged to frame a State Litigation Policy also. The matter is remanded to the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. It is expected that he shall adequately and properly consider matters in light of more than one order of this Court by seeking appropriate assistance from the counsel representing the State before this Court and apprise himself of the repeated orders passed by the Court on the issue, one of 5 which has been placed on record by the petitioner at Annexure-6. It is expected that appropriate directions shall then be issued by the Principal Secretary to prevent individual petitioners having to come to this Court and obtain individual orders not only burdening the court unnecessarily but also imposing unnecessary burden on the State Exchequer in contesting such matters which can easily be resolved administratively in view of the pronouncement of the Court. Let the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department issue notice to respondent no.8 also and then proceed to pass final appropriate orders in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)