Alok Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Mazdoor vide order dated 19.1.1995. Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not allowed to work, therefore, he had filed W.P. (S) No. 75 of 2008 before this Court which was decided vide order dated 9.2.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer representation with the respondent authorities with further direction to the respondent authorities to take decision on the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) THE impugned order, Annexure 8, was passed by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Road Construction Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi, respondent no. 4, on the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 30.9.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2010, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition on 19.9.2012. It is observed in the impugned order that all the appointments made by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Mechanical Division, Road Construction Department, Ranchi, respondent no. 3, were cancelled by the State Government on the ground that the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) has not followed the procedure for public appointment and all the appointments were made illegal by the Chief Engineer, respondent no. 3. It has further been observed that the Government has taken decision to prosecute the officers who have given illegal appointments and to recover the salary paid to the illegal appointee(s) from the salary of the officers who have given appointments. It has further been observed in the impugned order that since the initial appointment itself was illegal, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to work.
(3.) HON 'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. U.P. State Law Officers' association and others [ : (1994) 2 SCC 204] has held as under: Who come to be appointed by arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if termination of their appointment is equally arbitrary. Those, who come by the back door have to go by the same door.;