D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against an order passed by Respondent No. 2, dated 14th of May, 2003 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition) whereby the services of the present petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect without holding any inquiry worth the name. Petitioner was serving as Ayurvedic Compounder in Ayurvedic Dispensary since 21st June, 1986. After more than a period of 17 (seventeen) years, the services of the petitioner was brought to an end for no justifiable reason. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that absolutely arbitrary decision was taken (Annexure -5 to the memo of the present petition). It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially when the petitioner was appointed there was no procedure of Public Advertisement etc., but, the names from Public Employment Exchange were being called by concerned respondent authorities and thereafter, there was a selection process. Petitioner's name was also reflected in Employment Exchange Register, maintained by the State. His name was given by the Employment Exchange and by following proper procedure the petitioner was appointed. The procedure prevailing in the year, 1996, was scrupulously followed and observed as, submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, never any notice was given to the petitioner by the respondents to explain that he was not illegally appointed. Petitioner has served honestly, sincerely, diligently and there is a spotless career of the present petitioner. But, suddenly an order has been passed on 14th of May, 2003 by Respondent No. 2, terminating the services of the present petitioner. It has also been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the concerned respondent authority has not properly appreciated the report given by the Respondent No. 4, who s District Deshi Chikitsa Padadhikari, Dumka, looking to this report also the aforesaid procedure has been confirmed in the selection of the present petitioner and no illegality has been committed in the selection of the present petitioner on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder, report at Annexure -5, given by Director, Deshi Chikitsa, Jharkhand, Ranchi is in favour of the present petitioner. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order dated 14th May, 2003 at Annexure -5 to the memo of petition and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has vehemently submitted those who are illegally appointed cannot be continued in service. There is no legal vested right with the petitioner once their appointment is found to be de horse the procedural rules for appointment. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a notice was already given by the respondents to the petitioner why his services ought not to be terminated as he was appointed unauthorisedly at the relevant time. A detailed speaking order has been passed by Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order of termination, dated 14th May, 2003 (Annexure -5 to the memo of petition) in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned Counsel for the both sides by which it appears that: I. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder in Ayurvedic Dispensary with effect from 21st June, 1986. II. It also appears from the facts of the case that there is already a report given by Director, Deshi Chikitsa which is Annexure -4 to the memo of the present petition as per this report, given by the Director, respondent No. 3 in which it appears that a detailed procedure was then prevailing for selection of Ayurvedic Compounder is already mentioned in the report. III. No illegality was committed as per the report, given by the Respondent No. 3, in selection procedure of the present petitioner. At the relevant time, in the year, 1996 the names were called by the concerned respondents from Employment Exchange and thereafter upon Interview the candidates were being selected on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder. This procedure has been followed scrupulously by the respondents and thereafter petitioner was given appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder with effect from 21st June, 1986. IV. It also appears from the facts of the case that petitioner had been working since 21st June, 1986. No notice was ever been given for any grievance about the services rendered by the petitioner. Thus petitioner is serving honestly, diligently and sincerely. V. It appears that after approximately a period of 17 years without holding any inquiry straightway conclusion has been drawn by the respondent No. 2. There was no defect in appointment of the present petitioner on the post of Ayurvedic Compounder. There is no inquiry much less than any inquiry report against the present petitioner. Thus, never any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and there is no inquiry report, even arbitrary, whatever is a report given by Respondent No. 3 is in favour of the present petitioner and vide impugned order, Respondent No. 3 has terminated the service. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) IT is also vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed for more than one dozen candidates and several of them have approached this Court and almost all writ petitions have been allowed by this Court. The Petitioner is only person who is left out in the list of unfortunate candidates, as mentioned in the termination order. One such writ petition or two such writ petitions are decided by this Court in the year, dated 20th April, 2007 in a Writ Petition (S) No. 4332 of 2003, Writ Petition (S) No. 4391 of 2003. The same impugned order has been quashed, by the aforesaid order passed by this Court in case of other petitioners. Report given by Director, which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of petition was allowed in these two aforesaid petitions. There is a discussion in Paragraph -8 in the aforesaid order passed by this Court about this report. It has been observed by this Court in Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 as under. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is on the record that names were called from the Employment Exchange; petitioners' names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange; they participated in the interview and appointment letters were issued for their appointment on 21st June, 1986. They joined the posts on 30th June, 1986 and 23rd June, 1986 respectively and were transferred on 13th January, 1987 and 6th March, 1987. They were also granted time bound promotion on 27th July, 1996. They were also given benefit of the 5th Payment Commission in the year, 1999. One Mr. Dwivedi, the then Director, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 10th May, 2003 and certified that the petitioner's appointment was legal and valid. This report was based upon the documents examined by the Director and the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the direction of the High Court in W.P. (S) No. 5848 of 2001. The Director verified the validity of appointment of number of persons, including the petitioners, two persons with the same name of Md. Kalimuddin, Harish Kumar Thakur, Bhim Chandra De, Suresh Bhandari etc. Bhim Chandra De and Suresh Bhandari filed a separate writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3836 of 2003 whereas both Md. Kalimuddin along with two others filed W.P.(S) No. 687 of 2003. The writ petition filed by Md. Kalimuddin and ors was allowed and termination order set aside. Similarly the writ petition filed by Bhim Chandra De and Suresh Chandra Bhandari was also allowed in view of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 687 of 2003. Petitioner's case is also similar to Md. Kalimuddin and others, as their appointments were also held to be valid in the enquiry conducted by the Director. 9. The termination order passed by the Secretary is based upon another enquiry, which was admittedly held behind the back, of the petitioners, as they were never provided any opportunity of explaining their position . it is also relevant to refer that the Secretary in his enquiry has referred to various documents to arrive at the conclusion that their appointment was illegal. He has also mentioned about the enquiry conducted by the Director to reject that enquiry only on the ground that Mr. Dwivedi was not holding the post of Director on substantive basis. 10. Mr. Modi, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, Pankaj Gupta V/s. State of J&K, reported in (2004) 8 SC 353, Union Public Service Commission V/s. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela reported in (2006)2 SCC 482 and State of U.P. V/s. Desh Raj reported in (2007)1 SCC 257, to urge that where appointment itself is illegal, termination order cannot be interfered with. 11. The proposition sought to be propounded cannot be disputed. However, in this case it has been established on record that initial appointment of the petitioners was by following due procedure of law. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment in Md. Kalimuddin's case passed in W.P.(S) No. 867 of 2003, which has attained finality. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order No. 91(8) dated 14th May, 2003 and consequential Memo No. 99 dated 25th June, 2003 in both the writ petitions are hereby quashed with a further direction to the respondents to pay the withheld salary of the petitioners. The petitioners in. both the writ petitions are also directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. They would be deemed to be in continued service and will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs. ;