RAJESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel For the Petitioner and the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for implementing the decision of the Board dated 21.03.2013 to the extent it recommended confirmation of the petitioner's services. The learned Senior Counsel For the Petitioner has submitted that in keeping with the requirements of Rule 2 (i) of the Rules for Regulating the Appointments and Qualifications for the Officers and Servants of Municipalities and NAC (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Rules), the petitioner was appointed on an honorarium under orders of the Executive Officer by Office Order dated 24.01.2008 (Annexure 2). The claim of the petitioner, on basis of Board's decision dated 21.03.2013, was pending in this Court when the respondents came out with an order rejecting his claim. The order is dated 21.02.2017 bearing Memo No 247 of the Nagar Parishad, Chapra. The order has rejected the petitioner's claim by assigning a reason that the petitioner's appointment was done by the Executive Officer, who was not competent for the said appointment. The petitioner has filed IA No 9192 of 2017 challenging the said order. Learned Senior Counsel For the Petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the order of appointment dated 24.01.2008, it is apparent that the Executive Officer has made the appointment in question after obtaining consent of the Chairman. By making such submission, he has tried to substantiate the initial appointment.

(3.) The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner relying upon the requirements contained in the 1977 Rules. Bare perusal of the said Rule shows that the requirement was of having an advertisement issued in two local newspapers and of pasting the notices in local public offices. No such details have been placed by the petitioner. Respondents, on the other hand, have disputed the assertion of the petitioner. They have specifically stated that no advertisement was ever issued prior to the appointment being made. The other objection raised by the learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad is that respondent No 5 has no power under 1977 Rules to make the appointment. In order to correctly appreciate the submission which revolves in Rule 2 of the 1977 Rules, this Court would consider it appropriate to quote this Rule :