TAPAN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction upon the Respondents to treat him to be in continuous service on the post of a surveillance officer after he had been allowed to rejoin following the inquiry and report by the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner has also made a prayer for payment, of his unpaid salary from the date of his rejoining, specially more so in view of the fact that he was allowed to Join and work for a certain period, whereafter he was restrained from performing his duties without any notice. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to agree to the proposal of the Respondent No. 3 contained in the Notification dated 13.8.2001 by which after scrutiny of papers, the Respondent No. 3 recommended that the petitioner should be allowed to rejoin on his original post of surveillance worker.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a Surveillance worker, whereafter he was promoted in the year 1990 on the post of Surveillance Inspector. The Respondents terminated his services from the promoted post of Surveillance Inspector on 7.4.1995 and held that his appointment on the post of Surveillance Inspector was illegal. This order of termination was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 495/97 (R) before the then Ranchi Bench of the Hobble Patna High Court. By order dated 30.9.1997, the said Writ Petition was dismissed holding that there was no illegality/irregularity in the order of termination issued by the Respondents. The Petitioner again filed CWJC No. 3506/1998 (R) malting a grievance that when the order of termination was issued on 7.4.1995, the petitioner was not holding the post, of Surveillance Inspector but he had been reverted on the post of Surveillance worker. He further contended that subsequently an inquiry had been conducted by the Director of Health Services. Government of Bihar, and a report had been submitted by the Civil Surgeon. Ranchi, holding that the Petitioner should be reinstated as surveillance worker. Accordingly, the petitioner appears to have made a prayer in the aforementioned CWJC No. 3506/1998 (R) that he should be allowed to be reinstated on the post of a Surveillance worker. The aforementioned Writ Petition was. however, also dismissed on 23.3.2000. holding, inter alia, that this Court had earlier dismissed the Writ Application filed by the Petitioner and during that period no such plea had been taken by the Petitioner to the effect that he was not holding the post of Surveillance Inspector but was holding the post of Surveillance worker. In that view of the matter the Writ Petition was dismissed. However, an observation was made that: if, according to the petitioner, an inquiry had been conducted and if it had been reported by the Civil Surgeon that the petitioner should be reinstated to the post of Surveillance worker, then the Respondents should be at liberty to take any decision on the basis of the said report and that the order of dismissal passed in CWJC No. 495 of 1997 (R| will not stand in the way of the Respondents to take a decision in accordance with law.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the Writ Petitioner appears to have again tiled CWJC No. 3293 of 2000 (R) for a direction that the Respondents should accept his appointment and pay his salary since the year 1995. The said Writ Petition was again dismissed holding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the authorities had recalled the order of termination that the authorities had recalled the order of termination dated 7.4.1995 and/or had passed an order of reinstatement. Accordingly, it was held that no direction could be given to accept the joining of the petitioner and/or to pay his salary since 1995. While dismissing the Writ Petition this Court observed that the order will not stand in the way of the petitioner in the matter of future appointment. This order was passed on 22.9.2000.;