NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN these writ petitions the common grievance of the petitioners is that their permanent services have been terminated by a laconic, cryptic, non -speaking and stereo type order(s) dated 5.5.06 & 8.5.06 on the plea that the appointments made in 1989 -90 during the tenure of one Shri Bakshi Purnanand Sinha, the then Chief Inspector of Factories, were held illegal and the petitioners are the appointees of the said period. According to the petitioners, the said orders have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and are violative of principle of natural justice. Further that individual case of the petitioners has not been examined and there was no application of mind of the authorities concerned on the individual case and that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. According to the petitioners, they were duly appointed on observing all the procedures of public appointment. The posts were advertised in the newspapers, applications were invited, the petitioners being eligible applied for the posts, they were called for written test, they appeared in written test and were declared successful, they were then called for interview, the Selection Committee on the basis of written test/interview then prepared a panel recommending the names of the petitioners for their appointments in the year 1990 and thereafter the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners in accordance with the said panel. The petitioners were they duly appointed in 1989 -90 and since thereafter the petitioners had been continuously working. Their services were all along found satisfactory. Their services were confirmed in the year 1994. It has been stated that their appointments were made against the sanctioned posts. After several years in 1998, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners raising doubts on their due appointments and alleging that their appointments were illegal. The petitioners individually had filed their replies. Their replies were found satisfactory by the concerned authorities and the matter was dropped. The petitioners were the employees of the then State of Bihar. After reorganization of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners were allocated Jharkhand Cadre and they suddenly received the impugned orders cancelling their appointments by the impugned order observing that their appointments are illegal.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State -respondents stating, inter alia, that according to the departmental report, the appointments made during the tenure of Sri Bakshi Purnanand Sinha, the then Chief Inspector of Factories, are illegal and as such on the basis of the said report, recommendation was made to terminate the services of the petitioners who were appointed during the said period. According to the report, some of the appointed persons happened to be the relatives of the officers and employees of the department. Though the posts were advertised, the advertisement was not published in a prestigious newspaper of vast circulation and that the roster of reservation was not followed and in that way there was violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the government has decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. It has been stated that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and thereafter the said decision has been taken. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Sr. counsel, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the different petitioners, submitted that the petitioners had been duly appointed after following the due legal procedure and the allegation of violation of Articles 14 & 16 is wholly false and frivolous. The posts were advertised in the leading newspapers inviting application for the post. The petitioners, who were eligible, applied for the post, the petitioners had appeared in written test and interviews and were selected by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, a panel was duly prepared and on that basis the appointments were made. All the appointments had been made against the sanctioned posts and there is absolutely no illegality in the appointment of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the allegation of non -observance of roster etc is wholly false and baseless and the same is only an after thought. However, the petitioners are not concerned with the said roster and if there is any deficiency in roster observation, the quota could have been adjusted against the further appointments and non - observance of any such roster cannot be said to be an in future appointments. The petitioners were appointed some time in the year 1989 -92 and since thereafter they had been continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents. Their appointments were confirmed by the department after taking into consideration of their performance and other relevant aspects. It has been further submitted that the notices were issued to the petitioners in the year 1998, which were duly replied to and after consideration of the same, the matter was closed. Learned Counsel submitted that the requirements of Articles 14 & 16 having been complied, there was no illegality n the appointments of the petitioners and long services of the petitioners cannot be terminated merely on the plea of some irregularity such as non -observance of roaster etc. and that too without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason in a mechanical manner. The impugned order does not mention about any illegality or about application of mind by a competent authority. The impugned orders are stereo type alleging the petitioner 's appointments illegal without disclosing the ground for holding as such. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned orders are violative of principle of natural justice and are vitiated in law and are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in and submitted that the impugned order itself should show that the principle of natural justice has been observed and any statement to that regard by way of supplementary affidavit is not permissible.
(3.) MR . P. Modi, learned G.P -I, defending the impugned orders, on the other hand, submitted that in the instant case there is no application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra). It has been submitted that in the case of illegal appointment, the principle of natural justice is not required to be observed and no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioners. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decisions of this Court in Seema Devi and Ors. V/s. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2005(2) JLJR 337, Bimal Kishore Rai V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1995(2) PLJR 573, Lalan Kr. Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1995(2) PLJR 309. It has been contended that the illegal appointments cannot derive any legal right and as such the petitioners cannot claim any right or the protection envisaged in Article 14 and observance of principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Nand Kishore Raut and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991(1) BLJR 441. Learned Counsel further relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V/s. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. as also another decision rendered in the same line by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Amarendra Kr. Mishra 2007 (1) SCR 33(S.C). It has been contended that if there is any deficiency in the impugned orders, the entire reasons and the grounds have been dealt with in the file in detail which is with the department and the department is ready to produce the same before this Court to show that there has been complete and full observance of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submitted that the papers available with the file go to show that several irregularities have been committed which make the petitioners ' appointments wholly illegal and as such there was no requirement of giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners against the impugned orders of cancellation of their appointments. However, opportunity was given to them, notices were also issued to the petitioners long back in the year 1998 and there was due application of mind on their replies which would be evident from the noting and observation made in the file which is in possession of the department. Learned Counsel submitted that since observance of the principle of natural justice is not required in the case of illegal appointment, the reason is not required to be explained in the impugned orders and on that ground, the impugned orders cannot be held to be vitiated.;