BINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAM ASHRAY MAHOTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants claim that they had been validly appointed as Class IV Civil Court employees in the District of Sitamarhi has, by the impugned order, been negatived for the second time by the High Court at Patna. The appellants appointments were challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution by four temporary Class-IV employees, who had been continuing in such appointment since 1985. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The appellants appealed to this Court when by an order dated 1st February, 2001 this Court remanded the matter to the High Court on the ground that the High Court had failed to consider the several contentions raised by the parties in the writ petitions. This time again, the High Court has set aside the appointment of the appellants on the ground that the appellants had been appointed in violation of the existing norms and rules.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the relevant procedure which had been followed in the appellants case had been laid down in Rules 73 and 77 of the Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Volume-I. These Rules which were operative at the relevant time provided:-