Shambhu Kumar Gupta vs State of Jharkhand and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Deputy Collector, Dumka had prepared a panel for appointment in terms of circular dated 3.12.1980. Subsequently, Deputy Collector, vide his letter dated 25.6.1993 made recommendation to the Director, Indigenous Medicine, Dumka to make appointment to those persons whose names were recommended by him. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 8.7.1993 and the petitioner joined in the office of District Indigenous Medical Officer, Putulbona, Dumka and then was being paid salary regularly but all of a sudden in the month of December, 1993, salary of the petitioner and also of others similarly appointed as that of the petitioner was stopped by the Treasury Officer, Dumka on the plea that appointments of the petitioner and others are illegal. Thereupon District Indigenous Medical Officer, vide his letter dated 30.12.1993 (Annexure-4) wrote a letter to the Treasury Officer intimating therein that the appointments of the petitioner and others are quite legal and, therefore, he made request to him to pay the salary to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner again started getting salary. While the petitioner was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities, he received a letter dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure 7) issued by the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 2 whereupon petitioner and others similarly appointed were called upon to establish that they have been validly appointed. Pursuant to that petitioner and others appeared before respondent No. 2 and produced all the relevant papers to show that they had validly been appointed. But the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner and other four persons namely Narayan Pas-wan, Deep Chandra Verma, Manoj Kumar Verma and Birendra Ram Das.

Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been filed.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Narayan Paswan on being terminated from the services had preferred a writ application, vide W.P. (S) No. 5517 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that appointment of the petitioner was quite illegal but that order was set aside in L.P.A. No. 267 of 2007 and his appointment was held to be quite valid.

Having heard and on perusal of the record it appears that Narayan Paswan whose case is similar to that of the petitioner had preferred an appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 267 of 2007 against the order passed by the learned Single Jude which has been allowed by holding that Narayan Paswan cannot be said to have been appointed illegally as he was appointed after his name was recommended for appointment by the Employment Exchange which was required under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and has been reiterated under circular dated 3.12.1980 and as such, there was no requirement for. inviting applications by giving notice in the newspaper.

Similar is the case here, petitioner''s services have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was not legal as a the time of appointment, no advertisement had been made in the newspaper and further roster clearance had not been taken but those grounds were not found to be tenable in the aforesaid L.P.A. where it has been held that petitioners (in that case) were appointed after having received their names from the Employment Exchange. Same is the case with the petitioner. Further I do find from the statement made in the writ petition that roster clearance had already been obtained before the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority.

In that view of the matter, following the decision rendered in a case of Narayan Paswan v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. LPA No. 267 of 2007, the order as contained in Annexure 7 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the service but it is made clear that he should not be entitled to any salary for the period he remained out of service.

In the result this application is allowed.