- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Representation of the petitioner for considering his case for reinstatement made in view of the judgment rendered in WPS No. 3524/2007 dated 9th August 2011 has been rejected by the impugned order contained at Annexure-23 dated 20th February 2013 issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand.
(2.) The background facts of the instant case are that the petitioner who claims to have been appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year 1986 in the office of Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Ranchi under the Water Resources Department of the erstwhile state of Bihar, was terminated from service vide Memo No. 2875 dated 19th December 2000 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWJC No. 534/2001. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13th March 2002 with a direction to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand to determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. It was however observed that if it is found that the appointment of the petitioner was made after due advertisement and selection, he will not terminate his service merely on the ground that there was a ban of appointment or the reservation policy was not followed and 14 years have passed. However, a fresh order was passed on 20th February 2004 once again terminating the service of the petitioner which was challenged by him in WPS No. 2091/2004 before this Court. By judgment at Annexure-5 dated 27th July 2006, the writ petition was dismissed by this court by holding which is as under: After termination, petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 534 of 2004. This writ petition came be disposed of vide order dated 13th March, 2002. Relevant directions of the Court read as under:-- The case is remitted to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will determine as to whether the petitioner was appointed after due advertisement and selection or not. If it is found that the appointment of petitioner was made after due advertisement and selection, he will not terminate his service merely on the ground that there was a ban of appointment or the reservation policy was not followed, 14 years having passed. On the basis of the aforesaid directions, an enquiry was conducted and petitioner was put to notice to explain the circumstances appearing against him. It came to the notice that petitioner's initial selection was without following any procedure in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby, no advertisement/notice was issued. Petitioner was never interviewed and selected by any competent authority and his appointment was totally illegal and in contravention to the rules. Accordingly, the authority has passed afresh order on 20th February, 2004. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that in some other case, some directions were issued and the employee has been reinstated. Admittedly, the aforesaid judgment has attained finality. Respondents have only implemented the directions of the Court and while implementing the same; they came to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was totally illegal and contrary to law and consequently, he has been terminated from service. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.
(3.) The petitioner went in appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 412/2006. However, the LPA was also dismissed by the Letters Patent Court by judgment dated 13th January 2009 finding no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The said judgment is at annexure-6 to the instant writ application.;