Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 628 dated 4.10.2010 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Daltonganj, by which the petitioner has been terminated from service. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in CWJC No. 2338 of 1998(R) dated 27.11.1999, direction was issued to the State of Bihar to take necessary steps for filing up the vacant posts in the Road Construction Department. In pursuance of the said direction, the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Daltonganj issued a notice on 12.1.2006 inviting applications for filing up the vacant Class -III posts in Road Circle, Daltonganj. The petitioner being qualified, immediately applied in pursuance to the notice dated 12.1.2006 and accordingly an interview letter was issued to him dated 19.1.2006 to appear for interview/examination along with all requisite documents. The case of the petitioner was considered by the four men Committee in its meeting held on 25.1.2006, the name of the petitioner was recommended for being appointed as Steno Typist, a Class -III post. The petitioner thereafter, has joined in pursuance to the order of appointment dated 28.1.2006 and started discharging his duty. The petitioner was issued a letter dated 16.12.2009 issued by the Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi informing him that an enquiry is to be made regarding his appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to give reply with respect to the fact that as to why his appointment be not cancelled on the ground that he was neither a party in MJC No. 977/02 nor has been appointed on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau & also he was not working on daily wages in the department. No advertisement was made with regard to vacancies. The procedure laid down in the Resolution Nos. 16441 dated 3.12.1980 and 3577 dated 25.4.1997 issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department was not followed.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter gave reply stating therein that the reason mentioned in the show cause is not applicable in the case of the petitioner because the petitioner has been appointed after following all due procedures, and has been appointed by the competent authority.;