State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors

2. After taking cognizance of the fact that large number of ad hoc appointments were being made in different departments without complying with the relevant rules and procedure, the Government of Bihar vide its Circular No.7260 dated 27.4.1979 which was followed by another Circular No.3001 dated 16.3.1982 imposed ban on such appointments. Notwithstanding this, ad hoc appointments continued to be made in violation of the rules and relevant instructions. This compelled the State Government to pass order dated 10.3.1985 for cancellation of ad hoc appointments and for filling the vacancies in accordance with the rules. After one year, the issue relating to large scale illegalities committed in the making of ad hoc appointments was raised in the Bihar Legislative Assembly and members expressed concern over such appointments. In the backdrop of this development, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 11.6.1986 made it clear to all the Secretaries to the Government, Heads of Departments, Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates that they will be personally responsible for the compliance of the rules and instructions in the making of ad hoc appointments. It, however, appears that the ban imposed by the State Government was relaxed qua Animal Husbandry Department and vide letter dated 4.7.1987, Under Secretary to the Government informed the Director, Animal Husbandry that for implementation of the schemes being operated by the department, appointments may be made on Class IV posts by committees comprising of Regional Director, Animal Husbandry as Chairman, Regional Joint Director, Animal Husbandry/Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry as Secretary and one officer belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

35. The facts of Jagjit Singh's case were that the respondents who had given the highest bid for 338 square yards plot in Sector 31A, Chandigarh defaulted in paying the price in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment. After giving him opportunity of showing cause, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease of the plot. The appeal and the revision filed by him were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh respectively. Thereafter, the respondent applied for refund of the amount deposited by him. His request was accepted and the entire amount paid by him was refunded. He then filed a petition for review of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, which was dismissed. However, the officer concerned entertained the second review and directed that the plot be restored to the respondent. The latter did not avail benefit of this unusual order and started litigation by filing writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on March 18, 1991. Thereafter, the respondent again approached the Estate Officer with the request to settle his case in accordance with the policy of the Government to restore the plots to the defaulters by charging forfeiture amount of 5%. His request was rejected by the Estate Officer. He then filed another writ petition before the High Court which was allowed only on the ground that in another case pertaining to Smt. Prakash Rani, Administrator had restored the plot even after her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. While reversing the order of the High Court, this Court observed:

Appointment letter not made available but this appointment has been referred to in a letter No.28/Con. Dated illeg. August, 89 issued by charged officer.

23. 9/Con. 2.11.88 Brij Kishore Singh Class-3

The argument of charged officer in defence also does not clear this fact that why many appointment letters had been issued with Issue Nos."Camp". As charged officer states - Files were maintained and office is responsible for safe "custody" of the same, then it is difficult to understand this fact that how the letters issued with No."Camp" had come in the files maintained by the office. If came, then how office can be responsible for this.

[emphasis added]

33. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the initial appointments of the respondents were made in gross violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 and the provisions of the 1959 Act and the learned Single Judge gravely erred by directing their reinstatement with consequential benefits.

36. In view of the above stated legal position, the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be sustained.

37. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.