IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12044 of 2008 Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, S/O Sri Mahendra Safi, resident of village and P.O. Jitwarpur, P.S. Rahika, District- Madhubani. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Director, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5.The Director, Welfare Officer, Welfare Department, Madhubani. ………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Sri Rajendra Pd.Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Rajiv Kumar and Mukesh Kumar Singh,Adv. For the State : Mr.Pankaj Kumar, A.C. to G.A.8 ---------------------------------- 2. 18/10/2011 It appears that the petitioner’s services were terminated earlier by the respondents. Accordingly, he moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No.14246 of 2003. The said writ application was heard on 31.1.2006. This Court found that the individual show cause of the respective parties had not been considered by the Director, Department of Welfare and a common order had been passed removing the petitioner along with others from service. In the circumstances, the writ application was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Director to re- examine the case of the petitioner afresh in 2 the light of reply to the show cause and assertion made by him in the writ application. Accordingly, the Director has examined the case of the petitioner in the light of the show cause filed by him, taking into account his pleadings made in para 20 of the writ application and, by the impugned order dated 6.6.2006, as contained in Annexure-1, he has rejected the same. From the impugned order it is evident that petitioner had obtained his appointment on a Class III post by the Deputy Director, Welfare through his letter no.27 dated 29.9.1995. Case of the petitioner is that in response to an advertisement by the Employment Exchange, he had submitted his application and his name, along with others, was referred to the Deputy Director, who appointed him. The Director has found that, by the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department no.499 dated 13.1.1993, Bihar Public Service Commission (in short ‘BPSC’) was vested with the power to hold competitive examinations and recommend names for appointment on Class III posts. Thus, after this letter of the Department, no other authority had any power in 3 law to make appointment without recommendation of the BPSC. This Court in a number of cases had directed the vacancies to be filled up through open advertisement. In the circumstances, he found that the appointment of the petitioner was wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in para 20 of the writ application had pointed out that some of the persons appointed by the Deputy Director in similar circumstances were continuing in service. This stand of the petitioner has been noticed by the Director in his order and he has found that, out of five persons named by the petitioner in the said para 20, three were working in Jharkhand State and in respect of two, enquiry was in progress and action was contemplated in accordance with law in their respect. Thus, the plea of the petitioner taken in para 20 of the earlier writ application was considered and dealt with by the Director in his order. This Court finds that after the said letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 13.1.1993, no other 4 authority under the Government had any power to make appointment on Class III posts without any recommendation by the BPSC. There is nothing on record to show as to when the said alleged notice was published by the Employment Exchange. Moreover, appointment letter of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-3 does not show that the same was issued on the basis of any recommendation by the Employment Exchange. The order of the Deputy Director only mentions that in the interest of work petitioner was being appointed. There is nothing on the records of this case, and there was nothing available before the Director to show that any advertisement was published, any interview was held or any selection process was gone into prior to appointment of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Director, Welfare, as contained in Annexure-1, and therefore, does not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)