- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner, who is the appellant herein, was dismissed from Bihar Agriculture Service, Category-I while holding the post of Block Development Officer, Chainpur, Gumla by Notification bearing Memo No.627 dated 06th September, 2000.The writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1577 of 2001 seeking quashing of the notification of his dismissal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 27th April, 2009.
(3.) During the course of arguments, the question relating to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court has cropped up. We may point out here that the respondent-State of Jharkhand had taken a preliminary objection in their counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court at Para 4 and 39 clearly asserting that the existing State of Bihar under whom the writ petitioner served and was dismissed from service before creation of the successor State of Jharkhand, had not been impleaded as a necessary party. The writ petition had to fail on that count. We do not wish to enter into the merits of the case. The undisputed foundational facts borne out from the materials on record on the question of maintainability of the writ petition are inter alia as follows:- (i) The writ petitioner was dismissed from service under the existing State of Bihar by notification dated 6th September, 2000. (ii) The State of Jharkhand had come into existence on the appointed day as per the provisions of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 i.e., 15th November, 2000. (iii) The State of Jharkhand was therefore not the employer of the petitioner and as such, no relief could be granted to the petitioner against the State of Jharkhand even if he succeeds in his challenge. (iv) In terms of Section 27 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 the High Court of Jharkhand derived jurisdiction, powers and authorities as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day in respect of any part of the territories in the State of Jharkhand as were exercisable in that part of the territories by the High Court at Patna. Evidently, the cause of action of the petitioner arose before the creation of the State of Jharkhand and the High Court of Jharkhand. (v) In terms of Section 34 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 pending proceedings in the High Court at Patna immediately before the appointed day could be transferred to the High Court of Jharkhand by order of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances and on consideration that the proceedings ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of Jharkhand. There were no pending proceedings before the High Court at Patna in respect of the cause of action raised by the petitioner through the instant writ petition C.W.J.C. No.1577 of 2001 which was filed on 19th April, 2001 before the Jharkhand High Court. (vi) The writ petitioner failed to implead the State of Bihar in the writ proceeding from which the present appeal arises. (vii) The writ petitioner could not be covered under the provisions of Section 72 or Section 74 under Part VIII relating to Provisions as to Services under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The said Section 72 applies to every person who immediately before the appointed day was serving in connection with the affairs of existing State of Bihar and on and from that day would provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless is required by general or special order by the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner had ceased to be in employment before the appointed day, therefore, the instant provision would not apply to his case. (viii) Provisions relating to Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 would also not apply to the case of the petitioner as no proceedings were pending before the appointed day before a court, tribunal or authority in an area which falls within the State of Bihar and moreover, Section 89 applies to proceedings other than the High Court. In this undisputed factual and legal position learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the provisions of Section 2(a), 2(e) and 2(j) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 which defines the "appointed day" "existing State of Bihar" and the "successor State". Reference has also been made to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act which relates to formation of the State of Jharkhand on and from the appointed day containing the territories of the existing State of Bihar named thereunder. It has been submitted that petitioner was serving in the district of Gumla at the time of his dismissal from service. Learned Senior counsel has also made reference to provisions of Sections 27 and 34 of the Act of 2000 which have been usefully referred to hereinabove as well. We do not bear any doubt in our mind that the writ petition in the present form before the High Court of Jharkhand, without even impleading the State of Bihar, could be maintainable.;