- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) SINCE , both the writ petitions arises out of the same order, accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The grievances of the petitioners have arisen on account of the order dated 14.2.1997 issued by the respondent no. 4, the Regional Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Ranchi by which their services have been terminated . They seek reinstatement in service upon quashing of the said order. Petitioner No. 1, Adit Singh , admittedly was appointed on 26.11.1991 whereas petitioner no. 2, Kamal Kachap was appointed on 12.12.1994 in the department of Animal Husbandry in the erstwhile Government of Bihar by the order of the respondent no.6, The District Animal Husbandry Officer. The services of petitioner no.1 was confirmed on 14.1.1994 w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and the services of petitioner no.2 was extended till further order vide order dated 5.8.1995. However, petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 23.12.1996, which they replied vide letter dated 24.1.1997 giving details of their appointment said to have been made by the competent authority from the panel of names from the district panel. However, after filing of the reply they have been removed from their service vide order dated 14.2.1997 ( Annexure -4) holding that their appointment was purely temporary and provisional and had been made after the issuance of the circular dated 28.10.1991 and as such they are terminated with immediate effect. Counsel for the petitioners submit that it was indicated in the said order itself that petitioners would be paid the salary for the period till 31.12.1996. It is further submitted that the arrears of salary till the period they have worked before the order of termination has not been paid to them as yet despite the interim order passed earlier dated 17.5.1999 and 21.4.1999 respectively.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent - State submits that the appointment of the petitioners on Class -IV post in the Animal Husbandry department was made wholly without jurisdiction by the authority, who did not have the power to do so. It is submitted that by a conscious decision of the State Government containing in circular dated 28.10.1991, the earlier letter dated 4.7.1987 granting power to the Regional Deputy Director of the Animal Husbandry Department to make appointment of Class IV and III Staff was withdrawn and the earlier circular was superseded. Appointment of the petitioners were admittedly made on 26.11.1991 and 12.12.1994 respectively, i.e. after the said authority and power had been withdrawn from the Regional Deputy Director of the Animal Husbandry Department of the erstwhile Government of Bihar. However, it is also not in dispute that the petitioners in fact were not appointed by the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department rather they were appointed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as per their own statement made in para 5 of the writ petition and vide letter dated 14.1.1994 the Regional Joint Director, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi has confirmed the services of petitioner no.1 and vide order dated 5.8.1995, services of petitioner no.2 was extended till further orders. Counsel for the respondent - State also submitted that the very issue were squarely under consideration before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Upendra Narayan Singh & others reported in 2009(5) SCC 65 where the issue relating to the effect of the circular dated 28.10.1991 was in question. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment set aside the order passed by the Patna High Court by which the employees concerned were directed to be reinstated as the initial appointment of the employees i.e. the respondents, therein concerned were found to be illegal and perverse.;