R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties finally. Both these similar cases are being disposed off by this common order.
(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged their termination orders. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in the year 1996 - 1997, Memo No. 2359 dated 30.4.1997 and Memo No. 6216 dated 24.12.1996 was issued by the then Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna directing the Commandant, Bihar Military Police -1, Ranchi to appoint the petitioners respectively, on the post of Constable, in special circumstances for doing commendable and valorous work, and accordingly, petitioners were appointed after their physical examination, and they joined on 24.5.1997 and 3.1.1997, respectively. They were also sent for training. Vide Memo No. 1046 dated 7.3.2002, the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna asked the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to dispense with the services of those persons, who were appointed by the then Ex -Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Mr. S.K. Saxena and were now working in Jharkhand, enclosing a list of such persons. Accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioners respectively vide Memo No. 4925 dated 4.12.2002 and Memo No. 4926 dated 4.12.2002 to show -cause as to why their appointment be not declared as illegal. After considering the petitioners' show -cause, vide Memo No. 5061 dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure -3), their services were dispensed with, against which they filed writ petition being WPS Nos. 6756 and 6755 of 2002 respectively, which were disposed of on 27.2.2003 with a liberty to file appeal/representation. Petitioners filed their representation but it has been rejecting holding that petitioner's appointment was illegal. Relying on the letter No. 213 dated 13.11.2003, issued by the Home Secretary, Jharkhand, he submitted that relaxation was allowed in special circumstances. He further relied on certain orders passed by this Court in February, 2003 (Annexure 8 series) to show that the order of termination were set aside on the ground that there was no justification to terminate the services on the ground that the Rules provided in Police Manual were not followed. Relying on the editorial note in the case of : AIR1998SC1477 Arun Kumar Raut, he submitted that the Division Bench judgment passed in the cases of Seema Devi and analogous cases reported in did not consider the editorial note. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, appearing for the State, on the other hand submitted as follows. In view of the judgment of Seema Devi (supra) this writ petition has to be dismissed. He relied on paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment and submitted that the appointment made without following the procedure and in violation of the Rules cannot be upheld by this Court. He further submitted that several illegal appointments were made at the instance of the then Ex -Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Mr. S.K. Saxena. He also submitted that the orders relied by the petitioners are prior to the said Division Bench judgment of Seema Devi (supra). He further submitted that the purported letter dated 13.11.2003 issued by the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand relied by the petitioners is of no help to petitioners.
(3.) IT is clear that petitioners were appointed illegally, on the direction of the then Ex -Director General of Police, Bihar without any advertisement and selection process. When it came to the notice that Mr. S.K. Saxena, the then Ex -Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna had made several illegal appointments, show -cause notices were issued to several such illegal appointees including the petitioners. Petitioners filed their show -causes and on consideration of the same, it was held that their appointment was illegal. There is nothing to show that only on the purported ground of special circumstances for doing commendable and valorous work, appointment cannot be made. The purported letter dated 13.11.2003 relied by the petitioners was issued much after the appointment of the petitioners made in 1997 and it cannot be said to be a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is not known as to in what context it was written and the same is absolutely vague also. Further the orders of learned single Judge, relied by the petitioners, are of no help. It appears that the judgment of Ashwini Kumar, : (1997)IILLJ856SC was not placed before learned single Judge. Moreover, subsequently the Division Bench in the case of Seema Devi, (supra), after noticing the procedures of appointment, held that the interference with the orders of dismissal will amount to revival of orders of illegal appointments of those persons which are against the constitutional provisions. It is settled position that an illegally appointed person does not acquire any right over the post, even if he continued for a long time and the Courts cannot approve such appointments. Further, the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi, : (2006)IILLJ722SC said in paragraph 43 - 'Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee.';