IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.573 of 2009 SURENDRA YADAV, son of Late Nasib Lal Yadav, resident of village Daharia Chakla, PS Chhatapur, District Supaul, a terminated employee of the Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Research Library, Patna, from the post of Catalouger ….Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Director, Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Marg, Saidpur (Extension Path), Patna -4 ….Respondents/Respondents with LPA No.583 of 2009 BINOD KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06- 11.1.2010 These two appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna have been preferred by the petitioners of CWJC No.3925 of 2006 (Surendra Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), and CWJC No.2852 of 2006 (Binod Kumar Sinha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), and the orders impugned therein whereby their services were dispensend with by the respondent authorities, have been upheld. The basic issues are common to both the writ petitions and have, therefore, been disposed of by a common order by the learned writ court. We propose to dispose of the appeals by a common order. 2. We shall first of all take up LPA No.583 of 2009. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to Class III posts. The 2 appellant was one of the applicants and was appointed. It was later on detected that the appellant had been appointed without following the prescribed procedure whereafter their services were dispensed with. The appellant challenged the same by preferring CWJC No.91 of 1999, which was allowed. Various other writ petitions by similarly circumstanced persons were also allowed by a common order dated 31.8.2004 (Annexure 8), whereby the orders impugned therein were set aside and the concerned authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to such employees. This was followed by show-cause notices to all of them which have on consideration of the cause shown by them, been rejected and impugned in the writ proceedings. As stated hereinabove, the writ petitions have substantially been dismissed with certain reliefs indicated therein. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent no.6 put up an advertisement only on the notice board leading to appointment of the appellant and others. After the same was detected, their services have been dispensed with in the manner indicated hereinabove. It is thus evident that the appellant and others were appointed without advertisement of vacancies. Law is well settled that putting up a notice, or for that matter an advertisement, on the notice board is of limited publicity and value. Law is well settled that all public 3 employments in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which is possible only if the vacancies are given wide publicity. We are, therefore, convinced that the services of the appellant have rightly been dispensed with. We entirely agree with the order of the learned single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not wish to interfere with the consequential direction passed by the learned single Judge. 4. There is another aspect of the matter which needs attention. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a strong grievance that similarly circumstanced persons have been retained and the appellant has been subjected to hostile discrimination. Rajesh Kumar and Dina Nath Singh, Class IV employees, mentioned in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, are two such persons. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6, submits on instruction that show-cause notices had similarly been issued to the said Rajesh Kumar and Dina Nath Singh, and on consideration of the cause shown by them, their services have also been dispensed with for identical reasons. In that view of the matter, seemingly valid grievance with regard to discriminatory treatment raised by the appellant comes to an end. 5. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 6. LPA No.573 of 2009 stands on identical footing 4 as the aforesaid appeal. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, this appeal is also dismissed. 7. In the result, LPA No.583 of 2009, and LPA No.573 of 2009, are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl