IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3178 of 2011 1. Shailendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Mukhram Singh, resident of Village – Maripur Kala, Police Station – Manjhi, District – Saran. 2. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bhukhnandan Singh, resident of village – Dharampura, Police Station – Manjhi, District – Saran. 3. Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Sri Janardan Singh, resident of village Saryupar, Marhopur, District – Saran. 4. Nand Kishor Singh, son of Sri Chintamani Singh, resident of village Ghani Chapra, Post Manjhi, District – Saran. 5. Abhishek Kumar, son of Sri Abhay Singh, resident of village and post Majhanpura, District – Saran. 6. Abhay Kumar, son of Sri Dudhnath Singh, resident of Village – Bisentola, Dorignaj, District – Saran. 7. Prabhav Kumar, son of Sri Mritunjaya Singh, resident of village – Daftarpur, Doriganj, District – Saran. 8. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of late Nand Kishore Singh, resident of village – Ramdanchak, Police Station – Dighwara, District – Saran. 9. Anoj Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Manager Prasad Yadav, resident of village – Muslimpur, Post Baniyapur, District – Saran. 10. Ankur Kumar, son of Sri Bhavwan Sah, resident of village – Baniyapur Tol Parsa, Post Baniyapur, District – Saran. 11. Bablu Kumar Singh, son of Sri Chandeshwar Singh, resident of village – Bhumihara, Police Station Baniyapur, District – Saran. 12. Surya Prakash Singh, son of Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, resident of village – Ghani Chapra, Police Station – Manjhi, district – Saran. 13. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Brahma Singh, resident of village – Majhbaliya, Post Majlispur, Police Station – Jalalpur, District- Saran. 14. Awadh Kishore Singh, son of Sri Jagnarayan Singh, resident of village and post Soniya, Police station – Daudnagar, District- Saran. 15. Amit Kumar Kushwaha, son of Nagendra Prasad Kushwaha, resident of village – Baniyapur, Police station – Daudpur, District- Saran. 16. Satish Kumar Singh, son of Hareram Singh, resident of village and post Sonia, District – Saran. 17. Vinesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Udayshankar Singh, resident of village – Mukhanpura, District – Saran. 18. Shailesh Kumar Singh, son of late ram Iquabal Singh, resident of village – Maripur Khurd, Post Nator Semariya, Police Station Manjhi, District – Saran. 19. Sandhya Kumari, wife of Sri Mithilesh Singh, resident of village & Post Daudpur, Police Station – Manjhi, District – Saran. 20. Kundan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Rajnarayan Singh, resident of village – Ramkaula, Post Kamta, Police station – Baniyapur, District – Saran. 21. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, son of Sri Visheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village and post Katsa, District – Saran. 2 22. Chandrashekhar Kumar Singh, son of Sri Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of village – Chintasanganj, Post – Rahampur, District – Saran. 23. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Baidhnath Singh, resident of village – Maripur Kala, District – Saran. 24. Subodh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Visheshwar Singh, resident of village – and post Parauna, District – Saran. 25. Shailesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Baidhnath Singh, resident of village Pilauai, Police Station – Daudpur, District – Saran. 26. Rakesh Tiwary, son of Sri Bikrama Tiwary, resident of village Mashrakh, Police station Mashrakh, District – Saran. 27. Tuntun Kumar Singh, son of Sri Kameshwar Singh, resident of village – Sikti Bhikham via Sadna, District – Saran. 28. Pyush Kumar, son of sri Jagdish Chandra Sharma, resident of village Parati, Post Shivmahamadpur, Police Station – Madhaura, District – Saran. 29. Izahar Alam, son of Md. Rafi, resident of village Mahmood Chawk, Mubarak Lane Dahiyanwa, District – Saran. 30. Mahesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ramashankar Singh, resident of village – Dhenuki, Post Hasulahi, Kopa, District – Saran. 31. Ranvijay Kumar Singh, son of sri Bhrigunath Singh, resident of village – Maripur Kala, Post Nandpur, Police Station – Manjhi, District – Saran. 32. Prem Prakash, son of Sri Laxman Prasad, resident of village – Ramnagar Chhawani, Bhagwan Bazar, District – Saran. 33. Bhanu Prakash, son of Sri Dalan Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla Ramnagar Chhawani, Police Station Bhgwan Bazar, District Saran. 34. Shailesh Kumar, son of Sri Laxman Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Ramnagar Chhawani, Bhagwan Bazar, District – Saran. 35. Shashikant Singh, son of Sri Arvind Singh, resident of village and post Dumari Add Dorignaj, District – Saran. 36. Mukesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of village –Chapiyan, Police Station – Baniyapur, District – Saran. 37. Sanjay Kumar Prasad, son of sri Mandali Prasad, resident of village – Sadha, Chapra, District – Saran. 38. Pappu kumar Bharti son of Sri Ramdas Bharti, resident of village – and post Sakari Bharti Tola, Police Station – Jalalpur, District – Saran. 39. Kumud Kumar, son of Haribhanjan Prasad, resident of village – Parsadi, Police Station – Parsa, Distirct – Saran. 40. Mukesh Kumar Singh, son of sri Parash Nath Singh, resident of village – Badheya, Post Chhitrawalia Ekma, Distirct – Saran. 41. Amit Kuamr Singh, son of Sri Nand Prakash Singh, resident of village – Ranpatti, Police Station – Manjhi, District – Saran. 42. Niranjan Kumar Srivastava, son of Sri Chandrika Prasad Srivastava, resident of village – Harkapkari Satjora, District – Saran. 43. Dipak Kumar Singh, son of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, resident of village – Galimapur, Post Rampur, Police station Garkha, District – Saran. Versus 3 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Agriculture Produce Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Agriculture Secretary, Saran Division, Chapra. 5. The District Agriculture Officer, Saran, Chapra. 6. The District Agriculture Officer cum Member Secretary, Selection Committee, Saran Chapra. ----------- For the petitioners: M/S. Sudhir Singh, Rabindra Kumar Tiwary and Raghwa Nand. For the respondents: M/s. Rajendra Kumar Jha, GP 18 and Mukund Mohan Jha, AC to GP 18. ------ 04. 25.8.2011 There are many a petitioners in this writ application, in fact adding up to 43 in number. Based on advertisement issued by the State Government, Department of Agriculture as evident from Annexure-1, selection on the post of Kisan Salahkar on contractual basis was sought to be made. The terms and conditions in terms of eligibility and the process of selection have been indicated in the advertisement itself. All these petitioners were selected and appointed and had been given letters of appointment, based on which they even joined their post. They have annexed their appointment letters as Annexure-4 series, which is dated 30th of August, 2010. But all of a sudden by a decision taken by the respondents by one stroke of pen, all of them have been removed on the ground that they did not fulfil the requirements of training in terms of the advertisement issued by the State Government. Such a decision is being assailed in this writ application terming it to be arbitrary on the ground that the advertisement only states that a 4 candidate must have training of minimum of 45 days. But the advertisement does not indicate that said 45 days must be in continuity. All these petitioners have training from certified institutions run by the State. The training imparted to them was of 30 days and 15 days adding up to 45 days. To that extent they have the requisite experience of 45 days training but after their appointment this is the ground on which termination has been effected. The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that selection had been made on these posts. Complaints were received thereafter by the authorities that there were irregularities in matters of such selection or appointment. Clarification was also sought as to the status of such persons who had acquired training for 45 days, split up in two parts of 30 days and 15 days. Matter was considered in the Department of Agriculture and the authorities came to a considered opinion that when the advertisement states 45 days of training it should be read in continuity and any person who had been appointed on the basis of a split up training cannot be permitted to be retained. The Court called for the original file relating to the issue where such a decision was taken. After going through the same the Court does not find any logic or reasoning assigned therein why a training of 30days plus 15 days was in any manner inferior or prejudicial to the object of such appointment. 5 No doubt at one place, the file does indicate that 45 days cannot be split to mean one plus one adding up to 45 days but what is the detriment which is being caused if training by 30 days + 15 days was imparted by the institution has not been dealt with at all. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement in this regard, even the authorities did not point out that ambiguity at the time of selection of these petitioners. Petitioners came to be selected and letters of appointment had been issued, which are any way contractual in nature. Getting wiser on the issue at the subsequent stage is not going to help the respondents in getting rid of the petitioners in the fashion in which they have done. If the petitioners are not to be blamed for the selection, which was carried out by the respondents knowing fully well as to the kind of training they had obtained, then a subsequent interpretation cannot be used against them at this stage. The Court is of the opinion that the reason for their removal, therefore, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have freedom to clarify the position in all subsequent advertisements, as and when it may be issued but services of the petitioners cannot be got rid of for the reasons indicated in the order of removal as such. Writ application is allowed. Annexure-5 dated 19.1.2011 therefore is quashed. Petitioners would report back for doing their job so 6 long as respondents decide to retain them on contract. The original record is returned to the counsel for the State in the Court itself. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)