Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.23190 OF 2012 ===================================================== 1. DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA SON OF SRI NARENDRA MISHRA IN ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH AYURVEDIC DOCTOR CENTRE MANJAURA, BLOCK & P.S.- UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA 2. DR. KUMARI SUJATA SINHA W/O SRI RAM NARAYAN SINGH IN ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH AYURVEDIK DOCTOR CENTRE BARAIL, BLOCK + P.S. + DISTRICT- SUPAUL .... .... PETITIONER/S C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM-EXECUTIVE VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA 2.THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 3.THE STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 4.THE DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5.THE DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, SUPAUL THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 6. DR. DHANANJAY KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 7.MD. AKRAM DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 8.DR. UPENDRA KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 9.DR. CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH- CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 10.DR. RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH- CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 11.DR. SATYADEO SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 12.DR. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH- CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014 13.DR. AJAY KUMAR SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 800014. .... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.22914 OF 2012 ====================================================== DR. NIRAJ KUMAR S/O PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AYURVEDIC DOCTOR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, HATWARIA, Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 2 BLOCK & P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA 3.THE STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, SUPAUL THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5. DR. DHANANJAY KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 6. DR. MD. AKRAM C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 7.DR. UPENDRA KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 8.DR. CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH- CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 9. DR. RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 10.DR. SATYADEO SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 11. DR. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH NULL C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 12. DR. AJAY KUMAR SINGH C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA-800014 .... .... RESPONDENT/S ===================================================== WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.23052 OF 2012 ====================================================== DR. ANIL KUMAR DUBEY S/O SRI SARJU SHARAN DUBEY R/O VILLAGE- KUTUMBA, P.S. KUTUMBA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT HOMEOPATHIC DOCTOR, ADDITIONAL P.S.C. (PRIMARY SWASTH CENTRE), KOCHADHAMA, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 3 3.THE STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PATNA 4.THE DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, KISHANGANJ THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AT KISHANGANJ C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- 5. DR. ARUN KUMAR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA - 800 014 6. DR. PRADIP KUMAR MEHATA C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH- CUM-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA - 800 014 7. DR. ABINASH KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA - 800 014 8. DR. NARESH KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA - 800 014 9. DR. SANJEEV KUMAR C/O SECRETARY, HEALTH-CUM- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, BIHAR, PATNA - 800 014 .... .... RESPONDENT/S ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.23190 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv & Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh. For the Respondent No 11:Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, Adv, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv, Mr. Chandan Kumar Verma, Adv and Mr. Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Adv & Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv. (In CWJC No.22914 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh GA8 Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv (In CWJC No.23052 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :Mr. Sanjay Kr No.2 GA5 Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv. ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 6 03-07-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in all these writ Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 4 applications is more or less one and same namely, quashing the common order of their termination on the post of Ayush dated 22.11.2012 which reads as follows:- ^^lafpdk la[;k&SHSB/Ayush/92/2012 vkns’k la[;k& iVuk] fnukad dk;kZy; vkns’k jkT; LokLF; lfefr ds i= la[;k 18951] fnukad 05-08-2010 ds }kjk jkT; ds vfrfjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnzks ij lafonk ds vk/kkj ij ,d vk;q"k fpfdRld cgky fd;s tkus ds fu.kZ; ds vkyksd es a LokLF; foHkkx ds i= la[;k 638 …ns0 fp0‰ fnukad 22- 07-2010 ls izkIr vk;q"k fpfdRldksa dh es/kk lwph esa 638 vk;q"k fpfdRldksa dks p;fur djrs gq, mUgsa fofHkUu ftyk LokLF;
Legal Reasoning
lfefr;ka esa inLFkkfir fd;k x;k ftyksa ls izkIr fjfDr;ks dh v|ru lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij bl es/kk lwph ls iqu% 63…40 vk;qZosn 16 gksfe;ksiSFk 7 ;wukuh‰ vk;w"k fpfdRldksa dks p;fur djrs gq, mUgsa fofHkUu ftyk LokLF; lfefr;kas esa inLFkkfir fd;k x;ka f}rh; pj.k esa izrh{kk lwph ls fd;s x;s p;u ds fo:n~/k Mk0 dkes’oj izlkn flag ds }kjk f’kdk;r fuokj.k lfefr LokLF; foHkkx ds le{k p;u esa vkj{k.k jksLVj dk vuqikyu ugha gkus dk vk/kkj cukrs gq, vkosnu i= lefiZr fd;k x;ka bl vkosnu i= ij LokLF; foHkkx ds f’kdk;r fuokj.k lfefr ds }kjk dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh Fkh ftlds dkj.k jkT; LokLF; lfefr ds Lrj ls dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh x;hA rRi’pkr vkosnd ds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds C.W.J.C. No. 4969/2012 nk;j fd;k x;kA fo";kafdr okn es a fnukad 19-03-2012 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk fuEu :i ls vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k& This writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Executive Director of the State Health Society to consider their presentation of the Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 5 petitioner examine the Disuse and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible so that all future appointments may be made in accordance with law and as per the Rules of the government applicable in the matter. ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr bl vkns’k ds vkyksd eas vkosnd Mk0 dkes’oj izlkn flag ds }kjk fnukad 29-05-12 dks jkT; LokLF; lfefr ds viuk vH;kosnu lefIr fd;k x;k ftlea sa muds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vkyksd es a vius dks vk;q"k fpfdRld ds :i esa fu;qDr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA vkosnd ds }kjk f}rh; lwph ds p;u es vkj{k.k jksLVj ds vuqikyu dh oS|rk ij pqukSrh nh xbZ gSa f}rh; lwph ds vuqlkj vk;qZosn vk;q"k fpfdRld ds fy, lkekU; Js.kh esa 26 fjfDr;ksa FkhA izFke lwph esa bu fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k 380 FkhA vkosnu i= ds }kjk vkosnd dk ;g dguk gS fd es/kk dk fu/kkZj.k 380$26= 406 ds vk/kkj ij gksuk pkfg,] tcfd jkT; dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk es/kk dzekad 380 ds i’pkr oSls vH;FkhZ ftudk p;u fdlh vU; Js.kh ds varxZr gks pqdk gS dks mlh Js.kh esa NksM+rs gq, fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus dh dkjZokbZ ftl Js.kh es a fjfDr gS mlh Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ ls dh xbZ gSa vkosnd dk dguk gS fd izFke lwph esa fiNM+k oxZ Js.kh dk dqy dksVk 92 Fkk ftlesa 8 vH;FkhZ dks es/kk lwph ds vk/kkj ij f}rh; pj.k esa lkekU; Js.kh ea s pys tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk mlls mRiUu gksus okyh 8 fjfDr;ksa ij p;u fiNM+s oxZ dh Js.kh esa miyC/k vF;FkhZ;ksa ds es/kk dze ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg, FkkA vkosnd ds vH;kosnu ij jkT; dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk viuk earO; fn;k x;k fd lkekU; Js.kh 380 rFkk fiNM+k oxZ 111 rd dk p;u izFke lwph ds lkekU; oxZ ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k gS Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 6 rFkk BC es/kk vad dzekad 112 ls 203 dk p;u BC oxZ esa p;fur gS mUgs a ,d o"kZ ds ckn lkekU; Js.kh esa fjDr inksa ij gLrkafjr fd;s tkus dk izko/kku ugha gS rFkk izFke lwph es a tks p;u gks x;k gS mUgs a vkj{k.k dksVk ls lkekU; esa ys tkus dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds ladYi ds vuqlkj vkjf{kr oxZ ds ,sls mEehnokj tks viuh ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij p;fur gksrs gSA] mudh x.kuk vkj{k.k dksVs eas ugha dh tkrh gSA f}rh; pj.k esa lkekU; Js.kh esa 26 fjfDr;kWa iM+us dh fLFkfr esa fiNM+s oxZ dh Js.kh ds oSls vH;FkhZ tks es/kk dze es a mij gS mUgsa lkekU; Js.kh esa ys tk;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vU;Fkk T;knk vad izkIr djus okys fiNM+s oxZ ds vH;FkhZ fiNM+s oxZ esa jg tk,axs tcfd de vad izkIr dj lkekU; Js.kh ds fjfDr;ksa Hkj tk,axh tks lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds }kjk fuxZr vuqns’kksa dk mYya?ku gksxkA fo"k;oLrq dh rduhdh egRrk dks ns[krs gq, bl ij lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx dk earO; izkIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA rnuqdqy fnukad 20-06-12 dks lafpdk earO; gsrq lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx dks Hkstk x;kA fcgkj vf/kfu;e 3@92 dh /kkjk 4…3‰ ds vkyksd esa lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds }kjk ;g earO; fn;k x;k fd vkjf{kr dksfV ds mEehnokj tks vius xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij pqus tkrs gSA fd x.kuk [wkyh xq.kkxq.k dksfV ds 50% fjfDr;ksa ds fo:n~/k dh tk,xh u fd vkj{k.k dksfV ds fjfDR;ksa ds fo:n~/kA bldk vuqikyu fu;qfDr ds izR;sd Qst esa gksuk pkfg, rFkk ;FkkfLFkfr vkjf{kr dksfV ds mEehnokjksa dks xSj vkjf{kr dksfV es a fxurh dh tkuh pkfg,A vius earO; esa lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd vkjf{kr oxZ ds oSls mEehnokj tks viuh ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij p;fur gksxsa mudh x.kuk vkj{k.k dksfV esa ugh dh tkuh pkfg,A lkekU; Js.kh esa 26 fjfDr;ksa iM+us dh fLFkfr esa fiNM+s oxZ dh Js.kh ds oSls vH;FkhZ tks es/kk dze es a mij gS mUgsa lkekU; Js.kh eas ys tk;k tkuk pkfg, vU;Fkk T;knk vad izkIr djus okys fiNM+s oxZ ds vH;FkhZ fiNM+s oxZ esa jg tk;sxs tcfd de vad izkIr dj lkekU; Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ;ks a ls lkekU; Js.kh dh fjfDr;ksa Hkj tk,xhA fcgkj vf/kfu;e 3@1992 dh /kkjk 4…3‰ ds vuqlkj Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 7 vkjf{kr dksfV ds mEehnokj tks viuh xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij pqus tkrs gSa fd x.kuk [kqyh xq.kkxq.k dksfV ds 50% fjfDr;ksa ds fo:n~/k dh tk,axh u fd vkj{k.k dksfV ds fjfDr;ksa ds fo:n~/kA bldk vuqikyu fu;qfDr ds izR;sd Qst esa gksuk vko’;d gSA lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ls izkIr bl earO; ds vkyksd esa p;fur lsok lwph ls v;qosZn fo|k esa lkekU; Js.kh esa p;fur 1] MkW0 varkmj jgeku] Gen-408, 2- MkW0 vkfnR; ukjk;.k Gen-410, 3- MkW0 v:.k dqekj feJk Gen-411, 4- MkW0 v’kksd dqekj feJk] Gen-412, 5- MkW0 :is’k dqekj Gen-417, 6- MkW0 mn; ’kadj flag Gen-419, 7- MkW0 egs’oj ikBd Gen-424, 8- MkW0 uhjt dqekj Gen- 428, rFkk 9- MkW0 dqekjh lqtkrk Gen-431, ds p;u dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSa blls Qfyr fjDr inksa ij es/kk dze ds vuqlkj vkjf{kr oxZ ls 1 MkW0 /kuat; dqekj Gen-702, BC-206 2- MkW0 eks0 vdje Gen-706, BC-207 3- MkW0 misUnz dqekj Gen-707, BC-208 4- MkW0 pUnz’ks[kj flag Gen-716, BC-209 5- MkW0 jkenso izlkn flaUgk Gen-717, BC-210 6- MkW0 lR;nso flag Gen-721, BC-211 7- MkW0 dkes’oj izlkn flag Gen-728, BC- 212 rFkk 8- MkW0 vt; dqekj flag Gen-2016, EBC- 205 dk p;u fd;k tkrk gSa Gen-388, SC-35 ds LFkku ij es/kk lwph eas vuqlwfpr tkfr dks dksbZ vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k vuqlwfpr tkfr ds ,d in ij p;u djus dh izfdz;k iw.kZ ugha dh tk ldsxhA gksfe;ks fo|k es dqy 6 vH;FkhZ 1- MkW0 izse izHkkdj Gen- 241, 2- MkW0 dqekj jatu Gen-246, 3- MkW0 jes’k dqekj flag Gen-248, 4- MkW0 vfuy dqekj nqcs Gen-249, 5- MkW0 foosd dqekj flag Gen-251, rFkk 6- MkW0 gtkjh dqekj flag Gen-252, dk p;u lkekU; iz’kklu foHkx ls izkIr earO; ds vkyksd esa fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk buds LFkku ij 1 fiNM+s oxZ dh Js.kh ls MkW0 v:.k dqekj Gen-372, BC- Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 8 162 2- MkW0 iznhi dqekj esgrk Gen-375, BC-163 3- MkW0 vfouk’k dqekj Gen-377, BC-164 rFkk vR;Ur fiNM+s oxZ ls 4- MkW0 ujs’k dqekj Gen-854, EBC-148 rFkk 5- MkW0 latho dqekj Gen-860,EBC-149 dks p;fur fd;k tkrk gSA gksfe;ksisFk fo|kk esa Gen-61 ds p;u dks fujLr djus dk fu.kZ; iwoZ esa gh fy;k tk pqdk gS blfy, 9 ds LFkku ij 8 dk gh lkekU; oxZ esa p;fur fd;k x;k gSa pwukuh fo|kk esa 1- MkW0 QSty vgen Gen-153 ds LFkku ij eks0 fjokuqYykg Gen-298, EBC-120 dk p;u fd;k tkrk gSA jkT; deZpkjh inkf/kdkjh vk;q"k dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os CWJC No. 4969/2012 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;y; ds }kjk ikfjr vkns’k rFkk iz’kklu foHkkx ls izkIr earO; ds vkyksd esa la’kksf/kr p;fur lwph ds vuqlkj p;fur vH;FkhZ dks fofHkUu ftyk LokLF; lfefr;ksa esa inLFkkfir djus dh dkjZokbZ djsa rFkk oSls vH;Fkhz ftuds p;u dks lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds earO; ds vkyksd es a fujLr fd;k x;k gS] mUgsa ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj lacaf/kr ftyk LokLF; lfefr;ksa dks mudk vuqca/k lekIr djus dk funs’k nsuk lqfuf’pr djsaA** 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the petitioners were appointed as Ayurvedic Ayush Doctors for a period of one year on contract basis after holding a competitive test and upon completion of a period of one year their tenure were further extended for a period of three years and it was only during the continuance of the extended contract period of three years their services have been terminated by the impugned order without giving any show cause notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing. Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 9 4. Petitioner No. 1, Dr. AshoK Kumar Mishra and Petitioner no. 2, Dr. Kumari Sujata Sinha (in C.W.J.C No. 23190 of 12) were appointed on 17.08.2011 initiallly for a period of one year and thereafter their services were also extended for a period of three years in the month of August- 2012, similarly petitioner, Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey (C.W.J.C NO. 23052 of 2012) was appointed on 17.08.2011 for a period of one year and his services were also subsequently extended by an order dated 13.09.2012 for a further period of three years w.e.f 17.09.2012 till 16.09.2015 or continued till receipt of the fund for implementation of the scheme of the Government of India, whichever was earlier. Such order of extension of the petitioner, Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey is on record by way of Annexure-7 which is also quoted hereinbelow:- ^^dk;kZy; ftyk LokLF; lfefr] fd’kuxat &%vkns’k%& jkT; LokLF; lfefr] fcgkj ds i=kad 18951 fnukad 05-08-10] izHkkjh fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz dkspk/kkeu ls izkIr dk;Z eqY;kadu izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij Mk0 vfuy dqekj nwcs] gksfe;ksisFk fpfdRld] vfrfjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz] vyrk] izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz] dkspk/kkeu dk lafonk vof/k dk foLrkj iwoZ fu/kkZfjr ’krksZa ,oa ekuns; ij fnukad 16-09-2012 dks ,d fnu dk VwV nsrs gq, fnukad 17 fnlEcj 2012 ls 16 flrEcj 2015 rd ;k dk;Zdze ds fdz;kUo;u gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj ls vko’;d fuf/k izkIr gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks rd ds fy, dh tkrh gSA g0@& flfoy ltZu lg lnL; lfpo ftyk LokLF; lfefr] fd’kuxat Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 10 Kkikad 467@ft0Lok0lfefr] fd’kuxat] fnukad 13-9-12** 5. The petitioner of second writ petition being C.W.J.C No.22914 of 2012 , Dr. Niraj Kumar also was appointed on 17.08.2011 and his services were on completion of one year tenure was extended by order dated 06.11.2012 for a period of three years w.e.f 14.09.2011 till 13.09.2014 as would be evident from Annexure-4 to the second writ petition. 6. It is true that such explanation was given by the district authorities namely the Civil Surgeon of the district where the petitioners were posted but then their appointments were initially made on the basis of an advertisement followed by selection and drawing of a panel and therefore, if there was any flaw in their appointment they were at least entitled to a show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing before termination of their service during the continuance of their extended period of service. 7. The plea of the respondents that at the time of their initial engagement for a period of one year the Government policy of roaster and reservation was not followed in the letter and spirit, could not have been made a circumstance for cancelling their appointment without furnishing them show cause notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing. It is here that the petitioners have a valid grievance, inasmuch as, Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 11 according to them whatever decision has been taken by the State Project Director in the impugned order dated 22.11.2012 is based on the application of the new Government policy of roster and reservation. This, Court, however, will not like to go into this aspect for a simple reason that had the petitioners been given opportunity to explain their view point by way of their show cause reply to the show cause notice issued to them and a decision had been taken thereafter, this Court could have appreciated in a better manner as to whether there was really any infringement in the Government policy of roaster and reservation in their initial appointment on contract basis. 8. The State Health Society being the autonomous body if it had already adopted the Government policy of roaster and reservation and the same was not strictly followed at the time of the initial appointment of the petitioners in the year 2011, was under an obligation to apprise the petitioners of the ground relating to their so called illegal appointment contrary to the Government Policy of roster and reservation and also decide the matter after eliciting their response to such show cause notice. In that view of the matter the impugned order of the removal of the petitioners from service during the continuance of their extended period of service must be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 12 9. The reliance placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit making the order of this Court dated 19.03.2012 passed in CWJC No. 4969 of 2012 (Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Singh vs the State of Bihar and Ors) as a plank also does not in any way improve the case of the official respondents because these petitioners were not made party to the aforementioned writ application. That apart the order of this Court dated 19.03.2012 was plain and simple which reads as follows:- "Petitioner claims that in the appointment of Ayurved doctors under the Bihar State Health Society the State Government has not followed the reservation policy. It appears that the petitioner has filed several representations before the Principal Secretary of the Department in this regard, last of which is Annexure-7 dated 14.10.2011. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Executive Director of the State Health Society to consider the representation of the petitioner, examine the issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible so that all future appointments may be made in accordance with law and as per the Rules of the Government applicable in the matter." 10. From a bare reading of the aforementioned order, it would be construed that this Court had never directed either for cancellation of the existing appointment of the Doctors who have already been employed for a period of one year or Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 13 had prohibited their extension. It is true that the executive Director of the State Health Society was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner of that case namely, Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and take a decision on his representation by way of ensuring that all the future appointments should be made in accordance with law and as per the Rules of the Government applicable in the matter but then this Court was never apprised as with regard to the specific appointment of the petitioner and at least nothing is found in this regard from the aforesaid order of this Court.
Legal Reasoning
11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand in all these cases have also tried to defend the impugned order dated 22.11.2012, which according to them has been passed by way of compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.03.2012 passed in C.W.J.C No. 4969 of 2012. According to them, when the matter was remitted back by this Court for examining the earlier appointment made by the Executive Director of the State Health Society, it was discovered that the Government policy of roaster and reservation was not followed and therefore, a direction has been given to terminate all such appointments with a view to fill up those posts strictly in accordance with Government policy of roster and reservation. Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 14 12. It has to be noted that the operation of the impugned order directing the removal of the petitioners and displacing them has already been stayed by this Court in the different interim orders dated 18.12.2012, 11.01.2013 and 11.01.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 23190 of 2012, C.W.J.C No. 22914 of 2012 and C.W.J.C No. 23052 of 2012 respectively and by virtue of such interim orders the petitioners in all these cases are still continuing in service. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no two opinion that the appointment made on contract basis can be terminated at any point of time in terms of the conditions incorporated in the contract. 14. As would be apparent that this Court had not even gone into the merits of the issue but has simply remitted the matter back to the authority to decide the issue. Thus, if there was any material on the basis of which the Director had come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners was vitiated on account of non-observance of the Government policy of roaster and reservation, it was also incumbent upon him to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners before issuing a direction for terminating their services. There is, however, no denial to the aspect that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of notice and/or without Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 15 affording opportunity of hearing. 15. The submission of Mr. Kishore Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Health Society that in the impugned order one month notice has been sought to be given will be of no avail, inasmuch as, that actually talks of the terms and conditions of the contract wherein the services could be terminated without any allegation. Here the issue is quite different, inasmuch as, the appointment of the petitioners has been held to be illegal on account of violation of the Government rules of roaster and reservation. That issue therefore, had to be gone into in each and every case individually to find out as to how many persons could have been appointed on the basis of the Government policy of roaster and reservation and how the same was not adhered to in the case of the petitioners. Every petitioner though governed by the government policy of roaster and reservation in case of its violation could become liable to be removed from service but not in a haphazard manner and that too by one stroke of pen of the authority even without complying the principles of natural justice. 16. In view of the aforementioned findings this Court would find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioners and they are Patna High Court CWJC No.23190 of 2012 (6) dt.03-07-2013 16 accordingly quashed. 17. It would be, however, open for the State Health Society to now issue a show cause notice to each of the petitioners who is sought to be removed on the ground of violation of the Government policy of roaster and reservation. Once such show cause notice containing the gist of allegation as with regard to violation of Government policy of roaster and reservation is given to the petitioners, they will be under an obligation to file their show cause reply and thereafter the competent authority would be at liberty to pass the order strictly in accordance with law. Till such exercise is completed the petitioners shall continue in service that is till the completion of extended period of three years or till the date of passing of the fresh order of removal which ever is earlier. 18. With the aforementioned observation and direction,
Decision
these applications are disposed of. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)