NAGENDRA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants along with several others were appointed as constables in the year 1990 pursuant to vacancies notified through notice displayed on the notice board in the Office of Zonal Inspector General, Ranchi. Subsequently, when it transpired that the vacancies were neither advertised through the Employment Exchange nor in the Newspapers, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police directed that all such persons, including the appellants, be dismissed from service and consequentially they were dismissed. Some of the constables filed writ petitions challenging the orders of their dismissal which were quashed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the orders were passed without giving opportunity of hearing against which the State of Jharkhand filed Letters Patent appeals in the High Court. In the meantime, the appellants also challenged their orders of dismissal by filing separate writ petitions and their writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals were heard together by a Division Bench and by the impugned order High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals, set aside orders of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants with this modification only that orders of dismissal from service should be treated as orders of termination. Hence these appeals by special leave.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that though the vacancies were neither advertised through the Employment Exchange nor in any Newspaper, as required under Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual, but as the same were displayed on the notice board, it cannot be said that there was infraction of the said Rule; as such the services of the appellants should not have been terminated, moreso when they have continued in service for a period of fourteen years. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitted that as the appointments, being in infraction of Rule 663(d, were illegal, the competent authority was quite justified in terminating services of the appellants.