IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 11389 of 2006 SADAN KUMAR, SON OF SRI SATYA NARAIN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF NETAJI SUBHASH COLONY, LAKARIDAI CHANDWARA, P.S.-MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ………………….. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 5. DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, JEHANABAD ……………………. RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. A. S. Jha, SC-14 Mr. Shailendra Kr. Jha, AC to SC-14 ----------- 02. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the Order, contained in Memo No. 273, dated 23.05.2001, issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Magadh Range, Gaya, terminating the petitioner from his service and also to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all consequential benefits. Petitioner was appointed on Class – IV post in the Animal Husbandry Department, by the 2 Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Regional Director at the relevant time was vested with the power to make appointments on Class - IV posts, as per Annexure-7 to the Writ Application. The Order, contained in Annexure-7 had been issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry on 4th of July, 1987, whereby a Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Regional Director, was authorized to make appointment on Class – IV posts, but in this very letter, it is mentioned that so far another member of this Committee is concerned, there is no such post. Practically, through this letter, the Regional Director was authorized for making appointments on Class – IV posts. However, the power, which was vested in the Regional Deputy Director, was taken back on 28.10.1991. Petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 26.01.1991 and the said appointment was made permanent by the Appointment Committee on 09.04.1992. Petitioner continued on the post. Finally, the services of the petitioner along with others were declared illegal. They were asked to submit their show-cause and vide Order, dated 23.05.2001, petitioners were terminated from service. 3 In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the appointment on adhoc basis made by the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry was illegal, as adhoc appointment was completely banned by the State Government, vide Memo No. 7639, dated 11.06.1986. Vide letter no. 5094, dated 04.07.1987 (Annexure-7), the power of appointment was vested in a Committee, headed by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department. The Regional Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry was not individually vested with such powers. Since appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, as such, it was an unauthorized appointment and it can not be presumed that such adhoc appointment had been made in consonance with the letter no. 5094, dated 04.07.1987. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the earlier Orders, passed by this Court in similar Writ Applications. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated persons, were noticed to show-cause, regarding their illegal appointment and for showing reason that why they 4 should not be terminated from services. The show- cause dated 27th of March, 2001 (Annexure-10) indicates that through this letter, besides the petitioner, Birendra Kumar Singh, Upendra Kumar Singh, Prasanjeet Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Upendrea Narayan Singh were also noticed. Birendra Kumar Singh challenged his termination order and filed C.W.J.C. No. 6554 of 2000, which was allowed vide Order dated 25.02.2004. The termination order was quashed, holding that the appointment of the petitioner can not be considered an illegal appointment for the reason that the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry was vested with power to make such appointments. In case of Birendra Kumar Singh, subsequently, he was appointed on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission on Class – III post, as such it was held that initial appointment, can not be held to be bad. Upendra Narayan Singh, another appointees, also preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7816 of 2001, challenging his termination order and that was also quashed, considering that the appointment order in case of the petitioner had been issued on 26.10.1991, prior to 28.10.1991, on which date the 5 powers of appointment had been withdrawn from Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry. Considering the fact that in a case of similarly situated persons, in a similar circumstance, the termination order had been quashed considering the Counter Affidavits filed on behalf of the State, I do not find any reason to decide the issue in the case of the petitioner differently. Petitioner having been appointed in a similar circumstance by the same authority, his appointment can not be considered to be illegal. Accordingly, the order, contained in Memo No. 273, dated 23.05.2001 is quashed. This application is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post with all consequential benefits. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)