- (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 625 dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure -4) issued under the signature of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that the impugned order has been illegally issued by the said respondent whereby his services have been sought to be terminated on the ground of his irregular appointment. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by the competent authority under the signature of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurarigabad on 15.9*. 1988 (An -nexure -1) against Class IV post and since then he has been continuously rendering his services without any break. During the service tenure he has been transferred from place to place. In the year 2001, a notice was issued asking an explanation from him against his alleged irregular appointment. The petitioner had furnished his explanation and ignoring the same the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the said ground of his appointment being valid and legal, the respondent No. 4 have not even considered that he has got no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order, terminating the services of the petitioner who is now posted at Daltonganj falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel referred a decision of this Court in Arvind Vijay Bilung 'scase reported in 2001 (3) JCR 155, wherein it has been held by this Court that the authority of State of Bihar has no territorial jurisdiction to pass any order with respect to the employees posted within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order thus also suffers from jurisdictional error and is wholly unsustainable. Ms.. Nehla Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that this case is not covered by the said decision of Arvind Vijay Bilung 'scase as the petitioner though now posted at Daltonganj within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand yet North Koyal Project, Daltonganj is within the administrative control of the State of Bihar and therefore there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record. I find that it is not material as to in which project the petitioner is now posted, the point to be considered is as to whether he is a Government servant and where was the place of his posting on the date of the impugned order; within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand or within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar. Admittedly, Daltonganj where the petitioner is posted is within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand and in my view the respondent not an officer of State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. The case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court Arvind Vijay Bilung case (supra). In that view, I hold that the impugned order as contained in Annexure -4 is vitiated due to lack of inherent jurisdiction of the said respondents and the same is hereby quashed.
(3.) THIS writ application is allowed. No order as to costs.;