IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4749 of 2010 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD CHANDEL S/O LATE SITAL RAM R/O VILL GHOSHI TOLA (MUNGER), P.S.KASHIM BAZAR, DISTT-MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE HOME COMMISSIONER GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL- CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C), C.I.D. BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GAYA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ARARIA ----------- 2. 4.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The service of the petitioner as a Constable in the C.I.D. was terminated in the year 2003. The departmental appeal was also dismissed on 14.11.2003. The petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 874 of 2004. A Bench of this Court held that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to law and the writ petition dismissed. He preferred L.P.A. No. 102 of 2005. The appeal was also dismissed on 14.2.2005. The matters are stated to have attained finality thereafter between the parties. The present writ application has then been filed nearly 5 years later on 17.3.2010 on basis of what may be euphemistically be described as argumentative novelty. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13039 of 2004 disposed on 19.3.2008 has held that when an illegal appointment is terminated those who made the appointment shall also have to go and this proposition stands settled by judicial pronouncements including of the Apex Court. It is also pertains to appointment of Constable in the Police Force dismissed from service and the appeal rejected. If the petitioner had litigated against his own termination and there individual Court orders with regard to him, what may have been observed in a case filed by another is of no relevance to him. The relationship between him and the authorities shall be governed expressly in terms of the order on his writ petition and his appeal. There were no similar direction contained in the same to proceed against those who made the appointment. An order passed nearly 5 years after the dismissal of his appeal in another application cannot vest a legal right in him to demand action against those who terminated him for what is described as an illegal appointment. If the petitioner desired to pursue that course of action, the appropriate stage for him to do so was at the stage when the writ petition was 3 dismissed on 15.12.2004. Failure to do so at this stage also confronts him with the principle of constructive res-judicata. The application appears to have been filed in the fond hope that the respondents may reconsider the termination of their own if this Court were to give directions as sought for. What the petitioner did not get directly, is attempted to be gained indirectly. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)