IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17090 of 2007 UMESH PRASAD SINGH @ UMESH PRASAD SINHA, S/O LATE BAIJEDNRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SIMRA, P.S.- PARSABAZAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PATNA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 7. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SAHARSA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 28.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Against his earlier termination order, as contained in Annexure-5, petitioner had moved this Court and writ application of the petitioner was disposed of by a common order passed in a batch of cases as contained in Annexure-6. The State Government moved in LPA and all the appeals of the State against the respective cases were disposed of by a Division Bench of this court, vide order contained in Annexure-7, with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of all the writ petitioners in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (2) PLJR SCC - 2 - 363. Thereafter, five member Committee was constituted and the committee found that appointment letter of the petitioner as forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that soon after the appointment of the petitioner enquiry was held by the authorities of the department in which no defect was found in the appointment of the petitioner which will be evident from Annexures-10 and 11. He submits that earlier Committee had found appointment of the petitioner as irregular vide annexure-8, but subsequently the five member Committee has found the appointment letter of petitioner as forged. The findings of the five member Committee in respect of many other incumbents fell for consideration before a Bench of this court in a batch of cases and by a common order dated 6.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and other analogues cases a Bench of this Court has found that the said decision of the five member Committee was not in accordance with law and the Court set aside the decision in respect of petitioners of all the cases. Consequently, the petitioners of all those cases have been directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential - 3 - benefits. It is agreed at the Bar that the findings of this Court in the said order squarely applies in the case of the petitioner also and the findings of the five member Committee suffers from the legal infirmity as pointed out in the said order in respect of this petitioner also. In the circumstances, following the ratio and the decision of this Court passed in its order dated 6.10.2009 in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009, this Court is of the opinion that the writ application of the petitioner should also be allowed in the said terms and conditions. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure-5) is quashed and the respondents are directed to take steps in the matter of the petitioner also in terms of orders and directions passed by this Court in the said order. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)