The State Of Bihar vs Devendra Sharma

5) It is in pursuance to such direction; the State constituted a Committee of five officers5 to examine the facts of individual’s case. Two members of the State Committee did not participate in the proceedings nor signed the Report but remaining three members submitted its report on December 31, 2008. After considering the facts of each individual’s case, the employees were put in following three categories:

8) The order passed by the learned Single Judge also gave rise 6 (2010) 9 SCC 247 7 2011 (3) PLJR 547 8 2018 SCC OnLine SC 261 8 to LPA No. 1623 of 2009 and other appeals. Such appeals were allowed by consent on February 11, 2010 whereby, one- man Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of the High Court was entrusted the task of looking into various facts of the nature of appointment with the view to adjudicate the legality of their appointments and continuance in service. Subsequently, LPA No. 560 of 2010 and some other appeals were allowed on March 23, 2010 in the light of order passed in the aforesaid LPA but without any consent. The said orders were challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.6484 of 2011 and other matters. The appeals were allowed by this Court on August 8, 2011, inter alia, on the ground that without consent, the appeal could not be disposed of in terms of LPA No. 1623 of 2009 and other connected appeals. The appeals were directed to be decided afresh. It is thereafter, the Division Bench passed an order on September 24, 2014 setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Bench on October 6, 2009.

Therefore, the forgery is in the basic eligibility condition to undertake ANM course, which will vitiate the process of appointment. For the reasons recorded in Kirti Narayan Prasad, Civil Appeal Nos. 7906 of 2019, 7919 of 2019 and 7920 of 2019 are dismissed.

(Govt. order no. 262/HD, dated the 13th July, 1953.)”

(Govt. order no. 27680-H date dated the 1st November, 1954).” 26

(ii) For preparation of merit list at District level, District Head of the attached Establishment will be the Chairman of selection committee constituted and any other senior officer of that Establishment, who is nominated by their District level Head, will be its member. Second Member will be the District Welfare Officer so that at the time of preparation of merit list of government orders regarding maintenance no violation is committed.

ray technician, Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist, Ophthalmic Assistant, Broadcast Trainer, Health Trainer, Dy. District Mass Media Officer, Stenographer, Cholera Worker, Special Cholera Worker, Movie Player etc.”

6. On the above basis, all the earlier orders are superseded by the following order:

33) In Ashwani Kumar, this Court has dealt with the appointments made against Class III and IV category posts in the Health Department itself. The reasoning recorded therein is that the appointments have been proved to be made not against the sanctioned posts and in a manner, which is wholly arbitrary, capricious and, therefore, employees will not get any right to seek regularisation of their services.

34) In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20033 of 2012, the respondent was appointed by Dr. A.A. Mallick. Such appointments have been found to be illegal by this Court in Ashwani Kumar. We find that there is no reason to re- examine the appointments made by Dr. A.A. Mallick. Such appointments have been adversely commented upon in Ashwani Kumar case. Therefore, no right will accrue in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the appeal arises out of SLP (Civil) No. 20033 of 2012 is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.

35) Lastly, it is argued that employees have been working for many years, some for more than 25 years, therefore, humanitarian view should be taken to set aside the order of 32 termination and regularise their services so as to make them entitled to pension and other retirement benefits.

xx xx xx

108. …In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper to legitimise the admission of the appellants to the MBBS course in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hereby decline the above prayer made on behalf of the appellants.”

45) In light of the above discussion, we find that the order dated July 12, 2011 or other similar orders passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law and, thus, are set aside. The appeals filed by the State are allowed.

46) We do not find any error in the order of the High Court dated September 24, 2014, and, therefore, the appeals filed by the candidates against such order are dismissed. The pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

OCTOBER 17, 2019.