SUJIT KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case shows how desperate senior officers at district level are to make appointments, cancel them and make appointments again. Counter affidavit is on record. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself.

(2.) Petitioners are aggrieved by orders of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj by which their contractual appointments as Amin have been cancelled and now efforts are being made to make fresh contractual appointments. The ground of challenge is not only that the action was wholly without jurisdiction, it was patently mala fide as well.

(3.) It appears that large number of vacancies were there and occurring in the regular cadre of Amins in the State in different districts. Accordingly, Government took a decision in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. This decision, as communicated by the Government to all Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates-cum-Collectors is dated 3.12.2005 and is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This Government decision, as communicated, is that the vacancies may be filled up by re-employing healthy retired Amins whose re-employment would be for a period of two years or till regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier. Such re-employment should not be offered to people who are above 62 years of age. It further provides that where more than 25% of the post in any district in respect of Amin, Halqa Karamchari, Anchal Nirichak are vacant, those posts must be filled up on contractual appointments. It is further provided that it being contractual appointment, it could be terminated with one month's notice. It was further provided that these appointments would continue till regular appointments in the cadre are made and upon such appointments being made, these contractual appointments would automatically come to an end. It is further provided that in case of Circle Inspector (Anchal Nirichak), the appointments will be made by Divisional Commissioner and the appointment shall be communicated to the Government. It was further provided that the honorarium paid to these contractual appointees be calculated and if additional finance is required, the same may be sought from the Revenue Department. This last clause with regard to payment was necessary because all these appointments were being made on sanctioned vacant posts and that being so, there would hardly be any occasion for demand of additional finance from the State because for the sanctioned posts, funds were already available. It is pursuant to this that petitioners were selected and appointed as contractual Amins. Petitioners are all young men. They are not retired Amins or employees of the State. In fact barring one, rest are below 35 years of age. Their appointment letters are Annexure-4 etc. to the writ petition. Their appointment letter is signed by the Collector, Gopalganj and it is dated 26.12.2006. It has 10 conditions stipulated therein. The relevant ones are contained in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. Clause 4 provides that this contractual appointment is purely temporary. Clause 5 provides that contractual appointment would entitle the Amin to a payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month as honorarium. Clause 6 provides that beyond the agreement, no further claim would be entertained for the period of employment. Clause 7 stipulates that this contractual appointment would stand automatically terminated upon regular appointments in the cadre. Pursuant to these appointment letters, petitioners join.