IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14803 of 2004 Ajay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shyam Narain Singh, Resident of Village & Post Bhavalpur, P.S. Marhowrah, District Saran. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The State Leprosy Eradication Officer, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Saran Chapra. 6. The Incharge District Leprosy Eradication Officer, Saran, Chapra. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “3(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents allocation of work to the petitioner. (ii) For issuance of a further writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner along with arrears and interest.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, before pressing the aforementioned prayer, would very fairly submit that subsequently the service of the petitioner was terminated along with a large number of persons all of whom were appointed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, a State Leprosy Officer. 2 Counsel for the State with the help of the counter affidavit would submit that a large number of appointment having been made, this Court had initially directed for stay of operation of such appointment and subsequently, this Court had held all such appointment to be illegal as would be evident from the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Sriranjan & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar dated 9th August, 1999 in CWJC No. 3294 of 1999 and its analogous cases. Counsel for the petitioner would not contest this issue that the case of the petitioner also gets covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court but then he would contend that several others, whose services were also terminated, their cases have initially heard by the learned single Judge and thereafter a Division Bench of this Court had referred the matter for adjudication by a Special Tribunal consisting of Hon’ble justice Uday Sinha. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Annexure- D, there would be no need to now refer the 3 matter in hand because it is not in doubt that the petitioner’s appointment was rank illegal and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this Court would hold that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the judgment of Vinod Kumar Sriranjan (supra). Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)