OM PRAKASH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

AJEET KUMAR SRIWASTWA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3437 of 2008 GHAN SHYAM PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3457 of 2008 PARASH LAL SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS 16 CWJC No.3819 of 2008 HARISH CHANDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4214 of 2008 RANI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4270 of 2008 MANINDRA NATH OJHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4513 of 2008 DUDH NATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5249 of 2008 MADAN MOHAN CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5866 of 2008 SURAJ KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5902 of 2008 NAGESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 17 CWJC No.6443 of 2008 Jaideo lal Deo Versus The State of Bihar and ors CWJC No.6456 of 2008 RAJ BALI PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6463 of 2008 VIJAY PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7063 of 2008 KAPILDEO PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7595 of 2008 DHURANDHAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7963 of 2008 BINOD MISHRA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8118 of 2008 KRISHNA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 18 CWJC No.8137 of 2008 DINESH NANDAN CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8169 of 2008 KANTI PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8356 of 2008 VIJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8366 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.9942 of 2008 NAWAL KISHORE RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.12909 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.13526 of 2008 SATYADEO SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.15233 of 2008 19 ARVIND KUMAR SAH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.15716 of 2008 SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.16082 of 2008 MUKUND MURARI MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17310 of 2008 DEEP NARAYAN MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17436 of 2008 SATISH CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17448 of 2008 MUNNA KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17494 of 2008 SRI KRISHNA LALL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17709 of 2008 RAJANAND CHOUDHARY 20 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17589 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.18811 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.89 of 2009 SHIV KANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.124 of 2009 BEDANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1281 of 2009 SUBODH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1859 of 2009 INDRAPATI JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3502 of 2009 DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS Versus 21 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3844 of 2009 OM PRAKASH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6560 of 2009 VIJAY PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.100 of 2009 SANJEEB KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.101 of 2009 KUNDAN PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.765 of 2009 KUMARI Rita Verma Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1044 of 2009 RABINDRA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1047 of 2009 SHEELA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 22 CWJC No.1317 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3231 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.620 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.857 of 2008 PARMANAND MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2182 of 2008 MAKESH SHARMA &ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2394 of 2008 MANNU PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR CWJC No.2593 of 2008 UDAY NARAYAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 23 CWJC No.2830 of 2008 KRISHNA NAND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2864 of 2008 ARBIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2865 of 2008 DEONANDAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3160 of 2008 SAMIDUR RAHMAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3584 of 2008 RAMANAND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3670 of 2008 MOBARAK ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3676 of 2008 SACHCHIDANAND & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 24 CWJC No.3721 of 2008 RAMESH PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.3779 of 2008 Sheokant Chaudhary Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3813 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.3877 of 2008 BHOLI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4631 of 2008 BRAJ BHUSHAN TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5044 of 2008 RUDAL MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5163 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5668 of 2008 25 JAINENDRA KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6017 of 2008 RAM NARESH THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.6019 of 2008 RAM BAHADUR KAMAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6103 of 2008 PATO DEVI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6143 of 2008 RAM PRAKASH PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6616 of 2008 MD GYASUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6616 of 2008 MD.GYASUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6791 of 2008 26 VIDYA NARAIN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6937 of 2008 SAGUNLATA DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7522 of 2008 MD.ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8109 of 2008 Devendra Rai Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.9197 of 2008 BIRENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.11016 of 2008 MD.MASHIUR RAHMAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.14788 of 2008 DEV NARAYAN PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.15334 of 2008 SHAILENDRA MAHTO 27 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17225 of 2008 KRISHNA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.17472 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.18235 of 2008 BIPIN BIHARI UPADHYAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.19024 of 2008 RAM ASHISH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.395 of 2008 MOHAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1653 of 2008 UMESH KUMAR RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1724 of 2008 RAM PUKAR YADAV Versus 28 THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.2088 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2648 of 2008 LAW KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3323 of 2008 MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4592 of 2008 SHIV KUMAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6856 of 2008 JAGDISH MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7609 of 2008 BHAGWAN MISHRA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.8493 of 2008 NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 29 CWJC No.8581 of 2008 MATHURA NATH CHAMPAI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.12182 of 2008 BAIDYA NATH KAMAT & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.14973 of 2008 MAHADEO SAH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.18964 of 2008 BIMAL KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.417 of 2009 KISHOR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1891 of 2009 UMESHWAR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6438 of 2009 BAIDYANATH PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 30 CWJC No.6522 of 2009 SATYENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6563 of 2009 Jibachh Narayan Yadav Versus THE State of Bihar and others CWJC No.6587 of 2009 RAKESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2774 of 2008 MOHAMMAD QAISER IMAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.3699 of 2008 RAMDEO NARAYAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2749 of 2008 SAIYAD IMAM ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS CWJC No.4752 of 2008 JAWAHAR LAL BISWAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 31 CWJC No.5132 of 2008 HIRALAL SHARMA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.10022 of 2008 SONA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.12431 of 2008 KAROO SAO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR CWJC No.14286 of 2008 NAURANGI PRASAD GUPTA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.16783 of 2008 ISHWAR CHANDRA RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.870 of 2009 SURENDRA MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6642 of 2009 UPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3563 of 2009 32 MUNNA KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7489 of 2009 BADRI PRASAD GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7492 of 2009 PREM CHANDRA PREM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7493 of 2009 RABI SAW & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7500 of 2009 BINAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7519 of 2009 SUNAINA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7522 of 2009 ABHAY KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6536 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR 33 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.6549 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7613 of 2009 RAJESH SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7620 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7637 of 2009 KAPILDEO RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7642 of 2009 BHAGYA NARAYAN PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7645 of 2009 DUNNI LAL DEEPAK & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2440 of 2008 MITHILESH KUMAR Versus 34 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.10435 of 2008 SANJIV PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.12247 of 2008 KAMESHWAR PRASAD ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4921 of 2008 PRAMOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1428 of 2008 OM PRAKASH TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.1345 of 2008 RADHA BALLABH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2111 of 2008 PANNA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.3368 of 2008 MAHENDRA PRASAD KANDU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 35 CWJC No.5991 of 2008 SUBODH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.11779 of 2008 SATYA BHAMA DEVI @ SAT BHAMA D Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.4923 of 2009 KRISHNA KUMAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.5016 of 2009 BALDEO PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7630 of 2009 WAKIL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7669 of 2009 UMESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7739 of 2009 BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 36 CWJC No.7743 of 2009 DUKH HARAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.7804 of 2009 SHAMBHU NATH THAKUR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

7896 of 2009 SUKHDEO SIGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7918 of 2009 RAJENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7920 of 2009 MD. SHAMSHUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7956 of 2009 KRISHNA KUMAR BHARGAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7996 of 2009 SUDHIR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8004 of 2009 BAIJNATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8053 of 2009 URMILA DEVI 37 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8110 of 2009 AKHILESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8119 of 2009 RAMDIN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8194 of 2009 SRI MISR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8225 of 2009 VIJAY THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8244 of 2009 PARWATI DEVI @ PARVATI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8327 of 2009 RAM SURAT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

8359 of 2009 MD. AFROZ AHMAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8393 of 2009 UDAY SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With 38 CWJC No. 8396 of 2009 SATISH KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8490 of 2009 BHUPENDRA NATH SAHAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8492 of 2009 UPENDRA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8588 of 2009 ABHINAW KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8599 of 2009 NAGENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7868 of 2009 SHIV NARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7886 of 2009 PRASADI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7887 of 2009 MADAN MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7890 of 2009 CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA 39 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7892 of 2009 DINDAYAL MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

4939 of 2008 MD. RAFIQUE HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8197 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8656 of 2009 RAM SEWAK PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8657 of 2009 SUNITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8658 of 2009 JAI GANESH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8680 of 2009 KAMLESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 4856 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With 40 CWJC No. 13540 of 2008 SATYA NARAYAN PANDIT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 13650 of 2008 BIRENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 13688 of 2008 MD. SHAHJADA @ SHAHJADA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7622 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7790 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

7813 of 2009 BIJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8211 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8903 of 2009 LAL BABU MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.8907 of 2009 LALAN PRASAD Versus 41 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8908 of 2009 RAM PRASAD RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8909 of 2009 DHRUB KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8942 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8946 of 2009 RAM KARAN RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8947 of 2009 BIMAL CHANDRA JHA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8950 of 2009 KAMLESH KUMAR @ KAMLESH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8954 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR PURVLY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8795 of 2009 UPENDRA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

8838 of 2009 42 JITENDRA LAL DEO & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8865 of 2009 MAHESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8866 of 2009 MD. ABDUL MANNAN @ ABDUL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8883 of 2009 NAGENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8861 of 2009 GIRISH KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8862 of 2009 HARI CHARAN BODRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8900 of 2009 SATENDRA KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8901 of 2009 PHULESHWAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8902 of 2009 SHANKAR MISHR & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 43 With CWJC No. 9177 of 2009 RITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8943 of 2009 AMIT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8948 of 2009 PRABHAT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.

9126 of 2009 BIRENDRA BAITHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 8794 of 2009 DEVENDRA MALAKAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 2945 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR THAKUR & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 4600 of 2008 DHIRANDRA KUMAR THAKUR & Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 7817 of 2009 DULAR CHANDRA GUPTA@DULA CHAND GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No. 8017 of 2009 JANARDAN PRASAD 44 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 5

6.10.2009. Petitioners in all these writ applications are employees of Health Department. Their services have been terminated on the basis of report submitted by Five Men Committee constituted under the direction of High Court in L.P.A.No.946 of 2003. The report has put the services of the employees in three categories, irregular, illegal, and forged. Petitioners who have been put in either illegal or forged category, are recommended for termination from service. Facts of almost all the cases disclose that petitioners were appointed long time back right from 1969 to 1987 and thereafter. In some of the cases, appointment of the petitioners were declared illegal on the ground that appointment was made by way of regularization from daily wages employees by an authority who was not competent to make appointment. In some of the cases it has been stated that appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, following the procedure for regular and legal appointment, as such appointments are illegal.

In some of the cases, it is stated that appointment letters, on the basis of which petitioners were appointed were not issued from the office of those authorities, who are said to be appointing authority as there is no such entry in register of the concerned office. Appointments made on the basis of such appointment letters have been put in the forged category. It is essential that background of these cases should be discussed before analyzing the grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the enquiry report/impugned orders and reply submitted by the 45 State to counter the submission made by the petitioners. Petitioners were directly appointed on Class III posts and Class IV posts and thereafter regularized on their posts. In most of the cases, after their appointments, petitioners continued for more than ten years. They were regularized, their service books were opened and they were made permanent.

In some of the cases, petitioners also received benefits of time bound promotion. Subsequently their appointments were questioned by the authorities and enquiries were made. On account of questioning of their appointment and continuation of enquiry, salaries of some of the petitioners were withheld, as such, they approached the High Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing writ applications. They got relief from the High Court and directions were issued for payment of salary, as it had been stopped without any finding recorded against genuineness or legality of their appointment. Petitioners thereafter started getting their salary. The enquiry proceeded and in most of the cases finally termination orders were issued on the ground that on the basis of forged letters appointments were made, appointment letters were issued by an incompetent authority against unsanctioned posts and also that appointments were made without observing the selection process for legal appointment, without advertising the posts, giving proper opportunity to eligible candidates to participate.

A number of writ applications were filed challenging the termination orders. Those writ applications were decided by an order passed in C.W.J.C.No.4702 of 2003 and analogus cases. Some of the cases in which termination orders were not quashed Letters Patent Appeals were filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against orders quashing termination orders. Some of the writ applications, which were filed challenging the termination order had remained pending. Finally L.P.As preferred by the State as well as 46 petitioners and pending writ applications, were heard analogus. L.P.A.No.946 of 2003, became the leading case which was heard analogus with several L.P.As. and writ petitions. A marathon arguments were advanced by the petitioners as well as the State. Several questions were raised including the equity as petitioners have continued in their service for several years and in most of the cases their age for any new appointment had expired.

Finally all these matters were disposed of without deciding the merit of the case giving direction to the State to decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs- Uma Devi and ors ( 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363). Direction was to find out that which of the cases come in the category of irregular appointments. In case of irregular appointment, steps be taken to regularize services of such irregularly appointed employees as one time measure and so far the cases coming in the category of illegal and forged, no steps is to be taken for their continuation in service. The direction was that in case irregularly appointed employees have worked for ten years or more against a duly sanctioned posts, without covers of orders of courts or tribunal, their services be regularized initiating a process for regularization within six months from the date of judgment.

Further direction was to constitute a committee for holding enquiry. In the light of the direction in L.P.A.No.946 of 2003 and analogus cases the State of Bihar, Department of Health constituted five men committee for examining the nature and status of appointments of affected persons. It is pertinent to state here at this juncture that during pendency of the L.P.A. No.946 of 2003 and analogus cases before the High Court, the State government has undertaken similar task to find out the status of appointments of petitioners and similar employees by constituting three men 47 committee. This committee had also submitted report categorizing appointments of affected employees in three categories; illegal, irregular and forged. However, that report was not considered by the L.P.A.Bench and the matters were disposed of for fresh consideration of factual aspect, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors Vrs- Uma Devi (supra).

Five men committee had to complete its task within six months from the date of the order, but it was not done and the time was extended by the High Court for further three months. The committee did not complete the enquiry within the extended time, but thereafter no prayer for extension of time was made and the enquiry continued for longer period. During pendency of enquiry, Chairman of the committee was changed. Two of its members abstained from participating in the enquiry and they did not sign the enquiry report. Final report signed by three men committee was submitted as report of five men committee. On the basis of this report, petitioners were either issued termination letters or simply they were restrained from discharging their duty. In some of the cases despite enquiry report, treated their service as illegal or forged, concerned Civil Surgeon treated them as genuinely appointed. In other cases, though petitioners earlier termination order had been quashed by the writ court, they were not allowed to join, on account of pendency of appeal.

The situation was that some of the persons who were though directed to be reinstated by the writ court, were not allowed to be reinstated. Some of the persons in the light of writ court’s order had been allowed to join, but after submission of the enquiry report, again they were removed from their service. In some of the cases enquiry committee did not come out with any finding or it was not communicated to the petitioners even then they were treated to be illegally appointed and removed from the service, or if earlier 48 working were removed. Petitioners prayer in all these writ applications is for quashing the enquiry report submitted by five men committee and for a direction to reinstate them in their service, from which they were removed after 20 years, 18 years or more of their initial appointment. The first ground taken by the petitioners for assailing the report submitted by five men committee is that it is not a report of the committee of the five men committee as it has been signed by only three members.

It has also been submitted that two of its members abstained themselves from enquiry as in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, it was being conducted. These members were opposed to the manner of enquiry and also refused to sign. Counsels for the petitioners have submitted that they were terminated from their services, on the basis of such a report, which has not been prepared after holding proper enquiry. In reply to this, counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since out of five members, majority of the members have signed the report, it cannot be a ground for assailing the enquiry report. Counsel appearing for the State has not answered the question as to why the two members refused to participate and what was the difficulty which other two members have faced in signing the report, if at all it was an out come of their joint enquiry. In support of this fact that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner.

The petitioners counsel have cited different examples:- (i) Counsel appearing petitioner C.W.J.C.No.7065 of 2009 has stated that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner, persons including the petitioners were appointed by same authority i.e. Dr. B.N.Jha, Assistant Director, Health Services, Filaria Bihar. Name of persons have been given in 49 paragraph 22 of the writ application. In paragraph 23, it is stated that out of those appointed persons, services of seven persons were held illegal including the petitioners by the enquiry committee, and other persons were put in irregular category, and subsequently reinstated. This shows that there was no fixed yardstick for deciding the cases of appointment. Similarly appointed persons were treated differently. No reply was advanced by the State in this regard. (ii) In C.W.J.C.No.6750 of 2009, it has been stated that petitioners were terminated from service and one Umesh Kumar Singh, who was also appointed on the same day by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer was retained in service.

This order was challenged in C.W.J.C.No.4128 of 2003, which was allowed. However, the petitioners joining was not accepted by the Civil Surgeon. L.P.A. was preferred by the State against the order, passed in the writ application and the five men committee report has been submitted in which the committee has found the case of 91 persons as irregular, 228 persons as illegal and 358 including the petitioners as forged on the ground that no such appointment letters were issued from the concerned office. Other persons, who were appointed with the petitioners namely Umesh kumar Singh is still continuing in service. (iii) In C.W.J.C.No.1733 of 2008, the petitioner has stated that the enquiry committee has put his appointment in forged category, although during pendency of the L.P.A. 966 of 2003 on the direction of the Division Bench also an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners case was put in irregular category.

Whatsoever be the reason behind this change in the report and present categorization, that has not been disclosed. Appointments have been changed from one category to other, for no obvious reasons. 50 (iv) Petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.1576 of 2009 have stated that he was appointed after following due procedure for appointment. Posts were advertised interview was held and posts were also sanctioned. After interview 22 persons were selected and appointed in the same transaction. 21 Persons are still working and the petitioner has been terminated stating that his appointment is illegal. (v) Petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.2830 of 2008 has stated that he was appointed in 1985, thereafter he was regularized and confirmed. His service book was opened, finding his appointment as genuine. For no reason he was terminated from his service though in different enquiries conducted for this very purpose, it was found genuine.

The present enquiry report has put his appointment in the category of illegal appointment. Similar is the statement of petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.9197 of 2008, C.W.J.C.No.2008 of 2008 , C.W.J.C.No.16989 of 2008 and C.W.J.C.No.17234 of 2008. It has also been stated that in the counter affidavit of the State, filed in L.P.A. Bench, appointment of petitioners in these writ applications were treated irregular. But in the five men committee report, their services have been put in the category of illegal appointment. In sum and substance the petitioners have stated that the enquiry has been conducted without looking into any of the records relating to the appointment of the petitioners and without giving any opportunity to them to defend their cases. Enquiry report has been prepared without any application of mind. The enquiry Committee fixed a guideline and thereafter cases have been put in one or other categories.

This statement can be substantiated from enquiry report itself as in cases of some of the employees, it has specifically been mentioned, records not placed, even then appointments have been held either illegal or forged. 51 Mr. S.K.Ghosh, A.A.G.II has stated that the difference in categorization of appointments in between the report which was submitted during pendency of the L.P.As. and the enquiry report which has been submitted by the five men committee, is not of much relevance. These two enquiry reports can not and should not be equated or compared for the reason that on earlier occasion, the enquiry report was not submitted in the light of the guidelines mentioned in Uma Devi’s case reported decision of Apex Court (supra). The five men committee prepared its report, as per the direction of the Division Bench, in the light of Uma Devi’s case, specially the guidelines as mentioned in paragraph 44 of the Apex Court decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka- Vrs- Uma Devi and ors ( 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363.

Paragraph- 44 of the judgment is as follows:- “ One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa (supra) R.N.Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagrajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, settled by this Court in the case above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in 52 cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.

The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” On consideration of the submission of the rival parties what I find that guidelines which was before the five men committee and the guideline which was fixed by the three men committee during pendency of the case for considering factual aspects of the appointments and to put their services in any of three categories i.e illegal, irregular and forged were more or less sa`me except that in paragraph 44, it has been stated that irregularly appointed persons, if worked for ten years or more, but not under the cover of courts orders or of tribunal, be regularized, as one time measure.

In the present cases most of the petitioners have continued on their posts for more than 15,18 and 20 years. So far ten years of initial service is concerned, they continued without there being any cover of the court’s or tribunal’s order. Their appointments were questioned after they remained in service for ten years or more. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that before the five men committee or three men committee two different guidelines were there, for reaching to the conclusion, whether services of the appointees are irregular, illegal or forged. In no case appointment of same persons can be treated at one stage as irregular and in the next stage as forged, and if that was done reasons should have been assigned by the authorities for changing their own view. I find substance in the submission made by the petitioners that five men committee enquiry report has been prepared in a most casual 53 manner, without properly looking into the records and without there having any application of mind.

This view is further strengthened by this fact that at the time of hearing of the writ applications, petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.1257 2008, C.W.J.C.No.3122 2008 C.W.J.C.No.13563 of 2008 made a prayer for withdrawal of their writ applications as they have been re-instated in their service during the pendency of writ applications ignoring five men committee’s report. In the report they had been put in the category of illegal/ forged appointee. The petitioners have also challenged the enquiry report on the ground that it has been prepared in violation of rule of natural justice. Petitioners case is that no individual notice was issued to them. The public notice was also not published for giving information to every one, that on such and such date their cases are going to be considered, so that they could have defended their cases properly. Since valuable right of the petitioner like appointment and their lively hood was going to be considered, it was essential that they should have been noticed.

Mr. S.K.Ghosh placing reliance on the decision in the case of Lalan Kumar Singh and ors- Vrs- The State of Bihar and others reported in (1995(2) P.L.J.R.309), 2009 (5) S.C.C.65 (State of Bihar Vrs- Upendra Narayan Singh and ors), has stated that in a case where the appointment is ab-initio void, there is no requirement of individual notice. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that since the appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the rules framed for appointment and ignoring essential requirements as such appointments were ab-initio illegal. As decided by the Apex Court in such cases individual notice is unwarranted. What is required is simple knowledge of this fact and that was there, to the employees. I find that decision relied upon by the A.A.G.II has 54 no application in the present case as it relates to regularization of daily wagers/ ad-hoc appointees. Paragraphs which have been relied upon, there is no discussion in the specific term relating to an enquiry going on to examine the illegality, genuineness of an appointment after more than 20 years of service.

The finding do not disclose whether in such cases order of termination be recorded without assigning any opportunity to such appointees. In one way this is an admission on the part of the State that the petitioners were not noticed properly and enquiry has been conducted behind their back. Right, which has accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of their appointment and continuation for such a long time, in my view, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary and illegal manner. Atleast the petitioners were entitled to have an opportunity to place their individual cases. In case of given opportunity, whatever would have been the result, at least no allegations could have been made of any violation of rule of natural justice, by the petitioners. The allegations, I find to be correct, as such an important and valuable right, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary manner.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh representing the cases of petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.2830 of 2008, has stated that the petitioners were appointed in 1985. They were regularized, confirmed and their service books opened. After different intervals enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of petitioners appointment and each time it was found to be genuine. Since the petitioners were regularized in service and worked for more than 18 years, they could not have been terminated without following the procedure as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. An employee once confirmed on his post, could not have been terminated without initiating departmental proceeding. A permanent employees service 55 can only be terminated by following the procedures, laid down in the rules for removing a permanent employee and that procedure must have been followed as accorded within Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

It has also been submitted that since the allegation were made regarding securing appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters, or appointments made without following the procedure for a legal appointment. In such cases termination order could have been issued only after proper enquiry, and not without any notice to the incumbent to defend the charges framed against them. Petitioner’s counsel have placed reliance on two recent judgments reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R.840 (Ram Krishna Dubey Vrs- State of Bihar & others) and 2009 (2) P.L.J.R.869 (State of Bihar through the Secretary, Government of Bihar, in the department of Energy, Sinchai Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna- Vrs- Indra Mohan Roy). Relying upon the decision reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R.840, the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R. 869 has held that “a permanent employee’s services can only be terminated by following the procedure laid in Rules for removal of a permanent employees and that procedure must be accorded within Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

It has further been held that the allegation that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged appointment letter is not sustainable without holding any enquiry, as such allegation has to be proved in accordance with the rules. Forging of appointment letter is a misconduct and this cannot be assumed without holding proper enquiry. Counsel appearing for the State has replied this question also in the same manner that when the appointment itself was made in total disregard of constitutional scheme and recruitment rules framed by the State, 56 in such cases protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India can not be made available. I find that confirmation or regularization of service of an appointee is a confirmation of this fact that the authorities are satisfied regarding legality of initial appointment. Once an employee is confirmed in his service, automatically he gets protection as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution.

In case, lateron the authorities are of the opinion that they should again be convinced regarding the genuineness of the appointment, only one mode is opene for them that is to initiate a departmental proceeding, following the procedure as provided under the Service Conditions Rules for termination of service. Since the authorities in all these cases have not adopted the procedure before terminating the service of petitioners and have passed orders of termination without assigning any reason, it cannot be considered as a legal procedure adopted by the authorities. Action of the State and its authorities can not be considered legal. Mr. Banwari Sharma, counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.6575 of 2009 has submitted that the State and its authorities have wrongly stated that appointments were made on Class IV or Class III posts in violation of the Government Circulars/ guidelines/ rules. At the time when the appointments of most of the petitioners were made the circular issued by the State Personnel and Administrative Reform’s Department, contained in Letter no.3/R-1-103/73 (Personnel) 1644 dated 3.12.1980 was in vogue.

This related to procedure of appointment in Class IV posts. The department of health, State of Bihar, in consonance with the Personnel Department’s letter had issued letter no.05/A(App)20-1/88 Vol-2 574 (Health) dated 26.6.1989, relating to the procedure and requirements to be 57 followed for appointment on Class IV posts. Appointments could have been made, only against sanctioned posts following procedure like, posts be advertised, interview conducted, reservation roster followed and appointment be made by competent authority. At the relevant time the Civil Surgeon or the Regional Deputy Direction were competent authority to make appointment. Petitioners case is that following the procedure they were appointed. Since the counter affidavits have not been filed in each and every cases denying the statement made in the individual writ application as such there is no contradiction to these statements.

The petitioners have also stated that at present there are more than 4000 posts vacant in the department and the L.P.A. Bench had taken notice of this fact. This fact was also admitted by the State in its counter affidavit filed before the L.P.A. Bench. After bifurcation of the State several employees cadre had shifted to Jharkhand State and situation of vacancies has not changed till the date. In this circumstance, the exercise which is being done by the authorities of the Health Department for terminating the service of such employees who have remained in service for more than 15 to 20 years is nothing but inhuman. It has also been stated that while examining the illegality of appointment, it required to be balanced on the plateform of human right. A human, who is an employee, cannot be prosecuted with illegality of his appointment continuously throughout his tenure in his employment, when no action was taken by the authority immediately after such appointments.

In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of The State of Bihar and ors- Vrs- Shakti Shankar Singh (2009 (3) P.L.J.R., 483. I find that similar nature of cases filed by the petitioners against same enquiry report have been allowed by this Court quashing the 58 termination order as well as the enquiry report on the ground of discrimination, as persons appointed in same transaction are still continuing in their service, while the petitioners have been terminated on account of categorizing their appointments as illegal and forged. Another ground for quashing the enquiry report and termination orders issued in case of some writ application is that no reason has been assigned for treating the service of the petitioners as illegal, irregular or forged. The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of State of Bihar- Vrs- Upendra Narayan Singh) reported in 2009(5) S.C.C.65, it has been held that failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice.

Reasons are life link in between the decision maker to the controversy and question and the decision and conclusion arrived at. I find that unreported decision of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.4797 of 2009, C.W.J.C.No.4872 of 2009, C.W.J.C.No.5730 of 2009 and C.W.J.C.No.6431 of 2009 are identical to the case of the petitioners similar reliefs were prayed in those writ applications also, there is no reason for not allowing similar relief to these petitioners as in similar circumstances petitioners have also been terminated from their service. Counsel for the petitioners have further stated that in case of forged appointment, it was incumbent upon the authorities to examine the actual appointment letters and not the dispatch registers. The signature of the authorities should have been verified by handwriting expert, but that has not been done. Appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters is a serious allegation and it should not have been handled so lightly.

In support of this contention, the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad- Vrs- State of Bihar & ors (2001(3) P.L.J.R.(S.C.) 187. The Apex court in the similar circumstances has held that 59 in case of appointments on the basis of fake appointments letters, what should have been really examined is letters of appointments and not mere register through which appointment letters were dispatched. If the letters of appointment issued to the appellant was fake one, there was certainly, a cause of disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred. For numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the enquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That enquiry was not done and the Apex Court in these circumstances had set aside the orders of termination and issued a direction to reinstate the petitioners in service.

Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the decision in Uma Devi’s case has been the guideline for categorizing petitioners appointment as illegal, and forged and for issuance of orders of termination. The principle decided in this case has been mentioned in paragraph 44 of this decision. In paragraph 45 of Uma Devi’s case it has been held that principle settled in earlier decisions, which are running counter to what has been held herein, principle settled in this decision will stand redundant of their status as precedent. Counsel for the State has placed reliance on all these decisions in which principles settled earlier to the decision of Uma Devi’s case as such they cannot be considered as a good decisions. I find that almost all the petitioners were confirmed, absorbed and regularized in their service prior to the impugned enquiry, petitioners had earlier challenged their terminatioin orders and thus termination orders were quashed by this Court against which L.P.A. was preferred by the State.

The L.P.A.Bench did not set aside the decisioin of 60 single Judge whereby termination orders were quashed. Simply a direction was issued to conduct an enquiry. Once a judgment is delivered, its effect can be taken away only by a superior forum and that also, if set aside. Admittedly the judgments delivered in the writ application preferred by the petitioners were not quashed and the direction of this Court to reinstate the petitioners still remained there. I also find that the authorities have wrongly applied the reported decision of Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case while considering the nature of appointment of the petitioners. They completely overlooked that petitioners cases are not cases of regularization, but for finding out the genuineness of appointments. Case of regularization of a daily wager or ad-hoc appointee cannot be equated with the case of persons whose appointments have been made permanent.

In such cases the parameters as provided in Uma Devi’s case can not have application. This view has been held and affirmed by two Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 372 and 2008 (1) B.B.C.J.608. The decision reported in 2008 (1) B.B.C.J. 608 also related to termination from service on the ground that appointments were made by forged appointment letter. The Single Judge relying upon the decision of Uma Devi’s case had dismissed the writ application. L.P.A. Bench set aside the judgment passed by the single Judge. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is as follows:-