- (1.) PETITIONER was appointed temporarily for three months on the post of Chainman vide order dated 16.08.1986 (Annexure 1).
(2.) APPOINTMENT letter reads that appointment is only for three months and is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and prior notice. Impugned order dated 04.03.2004 (Annexure 7) reveals that Special Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to give provisional/temporary appointment vide appointment letter dated 16.08.1986 and further Special Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to grant extension to such temporary/provisional appointment. It further reveals that appointment letter could not have been issued by the Confidential Department. Impugned order further reveals that Personnel and Administrative Department of the Government of Bihar vide order dated 11.06.2006 has issued Ban on such type of appointments, therefore, appointment letter dated 16.08.1986 was passed in violation of Ban dated 11.06.2006. Impugned order further reveals that before granting appointment neither any advertisement was issued nor any procedure was followed, whereby public appointment should be done. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prafulla Mahto & anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand (2011 (4) JCR 112), Nand Kishore Pandey & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand (2005 (2) JCR 560) and of Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & ors. Vs. Gopal Singh (Civil Appeal No.918 of 2008) decided on 18th August 2009, has argued that in the case of similarly situated persons, terminations were held to be invalid. In the case of State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Gopal Singh (supra), persons were working against the sanctioned posts. Perusal of the judgment in the matter of Gopal Singh (Supra) would reveal that Hon'ble Apex Court has issued the direction to the State Government to consider as to whether State Government would be required to fill up those posts and it has been clarified that it would not be treated as precedent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to address the respective arguments on the following points: (i) As to whether petitioner can challenge the removal order in the peculiar facts of the present case that initial appointment was only for three months, that too, on temporary basis with the stipulation that it can be terminated without any ground and previous notice to the petitioner. (ii) As to whether in view of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others. Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006 (4) SCC 1), petitioner can be permitted to continue on the service even after his initial appointment was found to be in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as well as against the Ban imposed by the State Government vide order dated 11.06.2006. ;