IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.599 of 2010 1. UDAI KUMAR S/O ROHIN MANDAL R/O VILL KAILU TOLA , SUKHSENA,P.S.BARHARA KOTHI, DISTT-PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HEALTH GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DY. DIRECTOR , HEALTH SERVICES (TB) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ARARIA 5. THE CIVIL SUREGON - CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PURNEA 6. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT , SUB-DIVISIONAL HOSPITAL ARARIA 7. THE DISTRICT TB OFFICER ARARIA With CWJC No.992 of 2010 1. AMARNATH GUPTA S/O LATE KULDEEP NARAYAN GUPTA R/O VILL- SAVAIYA, P.S. PIRPAINTI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DY. DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES (TB) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ARARIA 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER PURNEA 6. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT SUB-DIVISIONAL HOSPITAL, ARARIA 7. THE DISTRICT TB OFFICER ARARIA ----------- 02/ 17.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners’ prayer is for quashing of the office order no. 43 dated 18.5.1993 issued by the District T.B. Officer, Araria, whereby petitioners were terminated from their service. Further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them on the post of IVth grade employee with all consequential benefits. Petitioners’ claim is that they were appointed - 2 - against the sanctioned vacant post of IV grade employee vide order contained in Memo No. 1931 dated 15.6.1987 issued by the Deputy Director, Health Service (TB), Bihar and their services were confirmed vide order dated 17.9.1988, but without any notice, without initiating any departmental proceeding and without giving any opportunity to defend their cases, they were terminated vide order dated 30.4.1993. I find that though petitioners have claimed that they were appointed on sanctioned vacant post and their services were confirmed, but they were terminated from their service on account of illegal appointment. Otherwise also, after so many years of their termination, the petitioners have challenged the order of termination, without explaining the delay. I do not find any merit in this application, it is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)