M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN all these writ applications the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Government which was communicated, vide order and direction dated 23.10.1998, whereby and whereunder the Government has decided to terminate the services of the Technical Assistants of the Animal Husbandry Department on the ground that the Regional Director of the Department was not competent to make appointment.
(2.) ALL the petitioners were time to time appointed as Technical Assistants in Frozen Semen Bank Project Hotwar, Ranchi in between 1988 -91. The petitioners case is that prior to that appointment notice was issued by the Department regarding recruitment of Technical Assistants. The petitioners applied and they were appointed against the sanctioned post. It is stated that the appointment committee consisting of Regional Director, Regional Joint Director and two District Animal Husbandry Officers, took the decision to continue the services of the petitioners against the sanctioned post. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that when the animal husbandry scam came in light it was also detected that huge amount of State exchequer was and is being siphoned out every year as salary of illegally appointed persons. Such appointments were done mainly from the regional office of South Chotanagpur, Ranchi. An investigation was conducted in the Department and it was found that a large number of illegal appointments were made by the officers who were never delegated with the power to make such appointments. It was also found that to justify such appointments few letters were issued by the officers who have been made accused in Animal Husbandry Scam. After revealing the seriousness of the matter. Government conducted further investigation and arrived at a decision to terminate the services of Technical Assistants and other persons who have been illegally appointed by the officers of the region.
(3.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Government conferred power to the Regional Director to make appointment and to exercise all the powers of Director of the Department. The power conferred to the Regional Director was withdrawn only in 1992. Learned counsel further submitted that all appointments were made by the Regional Director prior to 1992 and these petitioners have continued in their services on the basis of appointment made much before 1992. In this regard, learned counsel drawn my attention to several an -nexures which are part of the writ applications.;