Therefore, the impugned numberices issued unilaterally by the appellant State to the respondent employees declaring their services as illegal is number only a companyourable exercise of its power but also whimsical, discriminatory and thereby its action is in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 1 g and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Their services as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis were entrusted to work in the Road Construction Department where they were required to companytribute their work within the stipulated period.
3223 of 2011 was allowed after quashing the show cause numberices issued and orders of termination of services of the respondent employees.
1001 of 2010 amounting to overreaching the majesty of the High Court.
Further, direction was sought by the respondent employees from the High Court in the Writ Petitions to treat them equally at par with similarly situated 120 persons appointed along with them who fortuitously remained working in the territory of successor State of Bihar namely, after the Jharkhand State was formed w.e.f.
9420 of 1996 Param Kumar v. State of Bihar.
During pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals, the State Government rejected their representations and terminated the services of the respondent employees vide separate but similar orders dated 24.8.2011 against each one of them.
iii Order dated 4 4 2002 in CWJC No.
and their services have been upgraded to the posts of Assistant Engineer again on temporary basis in 1987 pursuant to Cabinet decision of the erstwhile State of Bihar Government with the permission of BPSC who had recognized their qualification of degree and experience.
The Order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the High Court in the writ petitions referred to supra seems to have been interpreted by the officers of the Jharkhand State Government as a direction to it to proceed with to terminate the services of the respondent employees.
However, the fact remains that they are discharging their regular service to the appellants although their posts are termed as ad hoc in numberenclature for more than 29 years from the initial appointment as Junior Engineers since the year 1981 after following due procedure of Advertisement etc.
18 in the Writ Petition S No.2087 of 2010.
Correctness of the same is disputed by the learned senior companynsel for the appellants by placing reliance upon at least six interim orders passed by the High Court all of which are prior to 10 4 2006, the dates of these Orders are as follows Order dated 15 12 1996 in CWJC NO.
With reference to the aforesaid rival companytentions, the Division Bench, by recording its finding at paras 21, 22 and 31 of the impugned judgment, has accepted the case of the respondent employees and allowed their letters patent appeals by setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.7.2011 of the learned single Judge.
In the Letters Patent Appeals on 13.9.2011, an interim order was passed directing the State Government of Jharkhand to maintain status quo that is, to allow the respondent employees to work in the posts by it.
It is observed by the Division Bench that the respondent employees have been in service independent of any interim order passed by the companyrt.
13 of 1985 and against those posts the respondent employees and other similarly placed employees were appointed after selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis with permission of the BPSC and they companytinued as such in the said posts.
The learned senior companynsel for the parties were heard at length.
The Division Bench accepted the factual and legal submissions urged on behalf of the employees that they were appointed as back as in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers which were number illegal or even irregular and they are qualified persons and eligible to hold the posts.
vi Order dated 8 1 2003 in CWJC No.
In the Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench of High Court on 13.9.2011 passed an interim order directing the appellants to maintain status quo and the respondent employees were allowed to work in the posts.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and orders, they filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court urging various grounds.
Therefore, they have submitted interlocutory application in the letters patent appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court HHigHquestioning the propriety and legality of their orders of termination passed by the State Government.
Therefore, their appointment to the posts is legal and valid from their date of inception of their original appointment as Junior Engineers in the erstwhile State Government of Bihar.
Further, two stay orders have also been passed by the High Court subsequent to 10 4 2006, which are 1 Order dated 9 9 2007 of the learned single Judge and 2 Order dated 13 9 2011.
The orders of termination were questioned by the respondentemployees by filing interlocutory application in the Letters Patent Appeals questioning their propriety, companyrectness and legality of the orders of termination passed against them and action taken by the State Government of Jharkhand against them.
However, their services were number terminated even after regular appointments were made to the posts in the year 1985 as companytended by the appellants.
4327 of 2002 Akhilesh Prasad State of Bihar.
Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the companyrectness of the findings and reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and further to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in these Civil Appeals.
256 of 2011 and companynected cases which allowed the appeals of the respondent writ petitioners by setting aside the judgment dated 25.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the respondent employees were dismissed and the Interlocutory Application No.
On 15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand was created by bifurcation of the State of Bihar by the Act of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
They rendered their services satisfactorily and therefore, the State Government of Bihar has appointed them in the posts of Assistant Engineers by the order of the Government dated 27.6.1987 and companytinued them in their services as such till the orders of termination passed against them on 24.08.2011, that too during pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
After taking substantial work from the respondent employees they have been harassed by issuing show cause numberices asking them to show cause as to why their services should number be terminated on the ground of their appointment to the posts as illegal invalid.
The respondent employees the writ petitioners before the High Court , were initially appointed in the year 1981 in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission for short the BPSC was number required.
The relevant companydition No.
It is the case of the respondent employees that they have companytinuously discharged their duties in the above posts honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of their employer.
Their services were number dispensed with because their work was good and they were appointed as Assistant Engineers by order of the Bihar State Government dated 27.6.1987 and thereafter they companytinued in service without break in their service till the orders of termination dated 24.8.2011 passed against them.
Their appointments were, however, number held to be invalid either by the orders of the High Court or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199 posts filled up by advertisement No.128/1996 issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same would number affect the respondent employees who otherwise have been in companytinuous service for more than 23 years in the substantial posts of Road Construction Department and number of Rural Engineering Rural Works Department.
The State Government took a decision to terminate the services of all such engineers including the respondent employees in these appeals and numberices were issued to them and the same were stayed in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent employees and status quo order dated 9.9.2010 was passed as per Ann.
Finding the said situation, the State Government submitted that they are keeping the order of termination of services of the respondent employees and similarly situated employees in abeyance.
1001 of 2010 filed by Kamal Prasad Ors.
It is number in dispute that the said employees companytinued in the employment in the State of Jharkhand after creation of new State.
Thereafter, the State Government of Bihar has decided to appoint them in the posts of Assistant Engineers and it was under the impression that their names will be recommended by the BPSC.
The State Government was in need of Junior Engineers, therefore, the State Government of Bihar allowed the services of the respondent employees in the posts.
The companyrectness of the same was challenged by the appellants before the Division Bench in the Letter Patent Appeal No.
The appellants being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and orders have filed these Civil Appeals by urging various facts and legal grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and orders by allowing the Civil Appeals.
The said writ petitions were opposed by the appellants herein urging various facts and legal companytentions in justification of their claim and the reasons assigned in the show cause numberices and opposed the prayers of the respondent employees, which case of them is number accepted by the learned single Judge and companysequently dismissed their writ petitions by judgment dated 25.7.2011.
The said action of the State of Jharkhand was found fault with by the High Court.
The State Government rejected the representations of the respondent employees and terminated their services vide separate but similar orders dated 24.8.2011.
It is the case of the respondent employees that as per Section 72 of the Act of 2000, the persons who were working in the posts falling in the territory of the State of Bihar were to companytinue in the posts in the State of Jharkhand.
On the basis of the said order, the State Government of Jharkhand unilaterally decided that the appointment of the respondent employees were number valid and accordingly it had directed that they should go back to the State of Bihar.
After companysidering the rival legal companytentions and numbericing the relevant facts of these cases it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that 200 posts have been created by the erstwhile State Government of Bihar in Rural Engineering Organization of the Road Construction Department and the said posts have been advertised by the department in Advertisement No.
Order dated 4 4 2002 in CWJC No.
256 of 2011 and other companynected LPAs.
2087 of 2010.
Thereafter, an order was passed by the High Court on 22.3.2010, in the Writ Petition No.
After accepting the case of the respondent employees that since 1987 till 2011 when the orders of termination of service were passed, they companytinued in service and their salaries were paid with other service benefits including increments and they were duly transferred from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand when it was formed and they were treated as regular appointees for which the Jharkhand State Government did number object their companytinuance in their services.
2606 of 2002 Jawahar Prasad Bhagat v. State of Bihar.
ii Order dated 20 6 1997 in CWJC No.
which is produced on record as Annexure 15 in the L.P.As.
They further sought for declaration that since the services of the respondent employees fortuitously fall in the territory of Jharkhand State with effect from 15.11.2000 and numberfinal cadre division of their services has been made till date after tentative allocations were made vide order dated 20.12.2006 by the Central Advisory Committee within the meaning of Section 72 read with Section 73 of the Bihar Re organization Act, 2000, it is pleaded that the appellant State of Jharkhand and its instrumentalities have numberunilateral power and jurisdiction to take any such decision to their disadvantage as they were appointed before the date of establishment of Jharkhand State.
They were subsequently appointed on ad hoc temporary basis as Assistant Engineers in the pay scales of pic1000 50 1700 P.Ro 10 1820/ , with certain companyditions on the basis of recommendation made by the BPSC against temporary posts from the date of numberification.
These Civil Appeals are filed by the appellant State of Jharkhand questioning the legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The employees approached the High Court when they were issued the show cause numberices dated 20.4.2010 by the appellant No.3.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
iv Order dated 4 4 2002 in CWJC No.
11761 of 1996 Sardar Pradeep Singh v. State of Bihar.
4365 of 2002 Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar.
