S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,ACTING C.J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order contained in District Order No. 1455/2005 dated 28th May 2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, circulated vide memo No. 1452 dated 28th May 2005, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect. He has also challenged Dhanbad District Order No. 870/05 dated 8th June 2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, circulated vide memo No. 2378 dated 8th June 2005, whereby and whereunder his services has been terminated on the ground that his appointment was found to be illegal by the State of Bihar.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner always helped the police in catching the criminals recommended for his appointment as constable and on the basis of such recommendation he was appointed as constable in the year 1996 and sent for Traffic Training. It was further submitted that the petitioner having been posted in the State of Jharkhand, the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, had no jurisdiction to terminate his service nor the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, can act on the basis of such illegal order of termination. Reliance was also placed on an unreported decision of this Court dated 31st March 2004 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1760 of 2003 and analogous case to suggest that the authorities of the State of Bihar had no jurisdiction to terminate the services of persons posted within the territory of Jharkhand. Counsel for the State relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Seema Devi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) PLJR, 337. The said case was heard along with other analogous cases, such as, Dhrub Bahadur v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. and disposed of by a common judgment. In the said case, the Court noticed the statutory provisions prescribed under the Bihar Police Manual for appointment to the post of constables and having noticed that none of the statutory provisions were followed at the time the writ petitioners of those cases were appointed, this Court refused to interfere with the order of termination.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was posted under the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, within the territory of Jharkhand; after the re -organization of the State, the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, had no jurisdiction to terminate his service in such circumstances the District Order No. 1455/2005 dated 28th May 2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, circulated vide memo No. 1452 dated 28th May 2005 cannot be upheld and the said District order is accordingly, set aside.;