IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5821 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner states that he was appointed on 3.12.1989 in pursuance of an advertisement published for the post of Clerk after an interview by a Selection Committee. It is his further case that as early as 2.7.1993 the issue of his appointment was verified and found to be valid. Notwithstanding the same, on 28.5.1994, it was again verified and confirmed that the petitioner has been validly appointed. On 29.9.1994 the District Magistrate, Nawada had an enquiry conducted by the Additional Collector, Nawada. The enquiry confirmed that frivolous allegations were being made of alleged illegality in the appointment. The District Magistrate specifically opined that the appointment of the petitioner was legal. Thereafter the salary of the petitioner which had been stopped was also directed to be released. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the issue of his appointment was still sought to be kept alive when on 7.8.1998 the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nawada submitted a clear report that the appointment of the petitioner was legal and there was no proof to suggest that it was an invalid appointment. Notwithstanding the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.3.2003 where after his services were terminated by an order 2 dated 13.8.2003. He came in CWJC No. 6891 of 2003, which was allowed. The order of termination was set aside. The matter was carried by the State in L.P.A. No. 287 of 2004, which was disposed with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases referring the matter of appointment to verification by the Committee. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Enquiry Committee has submitted a report in which name of the petitioner figures at serial 27 describing him as a person whose appointment letter was not available. The submission, therefore, is that the earlier enquiry reports have been completely ignored by the Respondents. In the fresh enquiry in pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner has not been noticed even though it was his appointment which was under scrutiny. Reliance is placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 5572 of 2009, where similar aspects had been considered. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of this writ application with direction to the Respondents to examine if the petitioner was similarly situated as that in CWJC No. 5572 of 2009. It is submitted that in the event that he is similarly situated, he is entitled to be accorded similar treatment. If the Respondents propose to hold that the petitioner was not similarly situated, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, setting out grounds and reasons for their 3 satisfaction that the petitioner was not similarly situated as the petitioner in CWJC No. 5572 of 2009, and was, therefore, not entitled to be accorded similar treatment. This shall necessarily facilitate judicial review of such an order, if the occasion arises. The writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)