Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.07.2010 issued by the respondent no.4 pertaining to cancellation of the order of regularization as has been contained in the order dated 13.02.2008, and also for quashing the order dated 01.10.2010 issued by the respondent no.6 relating to rejection of representations of the petitioners for reviewing the order dated 31.07.2010.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that petitioners were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on 01.12.1989 in Class-IV post in Collectorate and Development Cadre. After their appointment they were appointed to District Rural Development Agency, Gumla. They were allowed to join on temporary basis by respondent no.5. In the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10781 of 1996 (Satish Kumar Sahay vs. State & Ors.), the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, vide letter dated 09.11.1999 has given guidelines to the Deputy Commissioner for regularization of employees on the basis of seniority. The petitioners filed their representations before respondent no.4 for their regularization of services. The respondent no.4 after considering the representation of the petitioners, regularized the services of the petitioner and they were deputed to District Rural Development Agency, Gumla as per the order dated 13.02.2008, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has further been averred that after issuance of Annexure-5, one writ application was filed and after filing of the said writ application respondent no.3 instructed the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to cancel the order of regularization of the petitioners, vide letter dated 05.05.2010. On receipt of the said order, the respondent no.4 cancelled the order dated 13.02.2008, vide Annexure-5, in terms of order dated 31.07.2010, vide Annexure-7 to the writ application which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the cancellation order dated 31.07.2010, petitioners submitted their representations and the petitioners further prayed for review of the cancellation order and the respondent no.6 vide impugned order dated 01.10.2010, in Annexure-9 to the writ application, rejected the representation of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, vide Annexures-7 and 9 to the writ application, left with no other alternative, the petitioners have been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondent no.4 in cancelling the order of regularization dated 13.02.2008 without giving any opportunity, amounts to non-application of mind and the same is not legal nor valid. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents could not have treated the petitioners as employees of the District Rural Development Agency on deputation after regular appointment in the Collectorate and Development Cadre by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents were bereft of powers to change service conditions after lapse of more than two decades.;