IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7761 of 2002 MUNDRIKA RAUT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. B.K.Dubey For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr.Mandal, S.C.NO.5 ------ 3. 28.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 22.5.2002 and the consequent order dated 1.6.2002, dispensing with his services as a contingent menial peon and denying wages for the period he claims to have worked. He came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C.no. 9893/2000 with a grievance for non- payment of salary. This Court in its order dated 27.9.2000 noticed that the only defence of the respondents was one of paucity of funds. No issue of the legality of the appointment of the petitioner appears to have been raised by the Respondents. This Court directed payment of the legitimate dues within a time frame. Then followed, the impugned orders dated 22.5.2002 and 1.6.2002 raising issues of the eligibility and 2 validity of his appointment and denying him wages for the said reason. The petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ application has specifically stated that he was appointed on 17.12.1985 as a contingent menial peon on basis of his name being sponsored from the Employment Exchange whereafter he came to be regularized by the Establishment Committee from 9.11.1989. The respondents in their counter affidavit in reply to the pleadings in paragraph-3 of the writ petition have stated that the same are ‘matters of record’ but that the appointment was in violation of certain administrative reforms department circular dated 3.12.80. Clause-6 of the very same circular talks of appointment of grade-IV to be made through the Employment Exchange. If the appointment was through the process of the employment exchange, that his name did not figure in any panel, does not impress the Court. The respondents have acknowledged that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Courts have held that the appointment through Employment Exchange may not be the most desirable method but it was 3 certainly not an illegal method of engagement. On the issue of lack of advertisement and absence of name in any panel, the respondents are faced with the issue of constructive of res judicata. This objection was open to them in C.W.J.C.No. 9893/2000. No such objection was raised by them. There has to be a finality and certainty to Government action. Citizens cannot be left at the mercy of the authorities or individual officers to keep passing fresh orders on fresh grounds not urged in the previous litigation between the parties and seek to deny relief merely by exercise of State prowess. This Court also takes note of the manner in which the respondents have filed their counter affidavit, clearly making an attempt to save those who appointed the petitioner even while the respondents contended that the appointment was illegal. If the petitioner must go for that reason those who appointed him must also go whether they go by departmentally or criminal proceedings, whether they are in service or they have retired. The impugned orders dated 22.5.2002 and 1.6.2002 are accordingly quashed. 4 The writ application stands allowed. The order of this Court in C.W.J.C.NO. 9893/2000 dated 27.9.2000 merges into the present order of the Court. The writ application stands allowed. (Navin Sinha,J.) AI