AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) BY Court The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the Memo No. 336, dated 31.07.2002 as contained in Annexure - 7 to the writ application, passed by the respondent no. 6 - Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka whereby, the services of the petitioner was terminated from the service on the ground that his initial appointment itself was illegal. It was said that the petitioner could not produce any documents in connection with his appointment and that the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka had no authority or jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer a Grade - III post and further that the appointment was made without following the due process for appointment.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner as submitted by Mrs. Vandana Singh is that before issuance of Annexure - 7, no enquiry of any kind with regard to validity or legality of appointment of the petitioner was made by any of the competent authority. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted an application along with relevant documents including that of his appointment letter to show that he was legally and validly appointed but the same was not considered and the impugned order terminating his services has been passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Dr. M.K. Laik, Sr. S.C. - I appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was illegal because it was made without following the due procedure and norms of appointment and that also without any advertisement. It was further stated that the petitioner was appointed by the then Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, who had no authority or jurisdiction to make such appointment. He further submitted that notice was given to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents but the petitioner failed to do so and thereafter by Annexure - 7, the petitioner was terminated from the service. Dr. Laik further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Honble Court without availing the remedy to appeal as provided in the Rule and therefore, this writ application was not maintainable because the petitioner had the alternative remedy.
(3.) 2005(3) PLJR 375, it has been held that the Regional Directors, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar had the authority and jurisdiction to make appointment in Grade - III posts prior to the cut -off date i.e. 21.02.1992. It is further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure - 2 to the writ application prior to 21.02.1992 i.e. on 10.01.1989 and therefore, definitely the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka had the authority to appoint the petitioner to the post of Stenographer which was a Grade - III post.;