SANJAY KUMAR SANJEEV Vs. SADA BRIKSHA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the petitioners. Same was the position on 24.6.2010, in the circumstances, I have perused the writ petition and heard learned Counsel for the Mahnar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipality').

(2.) IN the writ petition prayer has been made to direct the authorities of the Municipality to make payment of salary to the petitioners with effect from 25.7.1993, the date the petitioners joined the post on which they were appointed under appointment letter dated 20.7.1993 issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipality contained in Annexure -5 series. It is further evident from the writ petition that prior to issue of the appointment letter selection process was initiated in the light of the advertisement for appointment published in Anugamini newspaper dated 11,12 -10 -1992, as contained in Annexure -3 and 3/1, response whereto petitioners applied for appointment on Class -III/IV post and were called for interview under letter dated 02.07.1993. contained in Annexure -4 series and after interview the appointment letters dated 20.7.1993 contained in Annexure -5 series were issued and given to the petitioners on the basis of which they submitted their joining in the Municipality on 25.7.1993 and began to discharge the duties entrusted to them. From Annexure -1 which is the letter of the Chairman of the Municipality dated 29.3.1992 it appears that the Chairman had asked the Executive Officer to make appointment on the sanctioned vacant post in the Municipality and in response to such instruction of the Chairman the Executive Officer under letter dated 30.3.1992, Annexure -2 sought permission of the State Government to make such appointment where after the advertisement dated 11,12.10.1992, Annexure -3 series was published. It is also evident from the writ petition that after submission of the joining by the petitioners and discharge of the duties by them when payments were not made then the present writ petition was filed on 10.7.1996 praying inter alia to direct the authorities of the Municipality to pay the salary to the petitioners with effect from the date of their joining i.e. 25.7.1993.

(3.) HAVING perused the writ petition, annexures appended therewith as also the counter affidavit and having heard the submission of the learned Counsel for the Municipality, I am of the view that publication of the advertisement in the newspaper dated 11,12.10.1992 for appointment on Class -III/IV post in the Municipality, Annexure -3 series, the issue of the interview letters to the petitioners dated 02.07.1993, Annexure -4 series and the issue of the appointment letters dated 20.7.1993, Annexure -5 series is not disputed. The genuineness of the signature over the interview/appointment letters is also not disputed. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that petitioners were appointed on Class -III/IV post in the Municipality after undergoing a selection process which according to the counsel for the Municipality is against posts which were never sanctioned. In such circumstances, the authorities of the Municipality could not have ignored the appointment letter dated 20.7.1993, Annexure -5 series and if they desired to cancel the same they should have given opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and after giving opportunity of being heard should have passed appropriate orders but in any case the Executive Officer could not have ignored the appointment letter dated 20.7.1993 issued by his predecessor.