Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

The instant L.P.A. depicts a peculiar fact.

Indisputably, the petitioner/appellant was appointed on Class – IV post as peon in the year 1989 in project Girl’s High School. Subsequently, his appointment was cancelled in the year 2002. The petitioner/appellant challenged the said cancellation order by filing C.W.J.C. 12145 of 2002, which was dismissed followed by LPA No. 66 of 2003, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, observing inter alia that if vacancies are advertised, then the petitioner/appellant may also be given an opportunity to appear and in that selection process, age bar may not be a ground to debar the petitioner and others from participating in the process of selection.

The petitioner/appellant preferred a special leave petition, bearing SLP (Civil) No. 14438 of 2003, against the said order passed in LPA on 30.01.2003 which was dismissed.

In spite of dismissal of the aforesaid SLP, affirming the termination order of the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Commissionary, Bhagalpur, passed a purported order allowing the petitioner/appellant to join the same post.

Subsequently, it was found that the said order was issued mistakenly and the same was recalled and the petitioner/appellant was removed from service on 26.03.2008. Then, he filed another writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7113 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, the said liberty was availed by the petitioner/appellant. However, the same was dismissed.

Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed a petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 986 of 2019, praying for appropriate relief. The said writ petition having been dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2023, whereupon the instant appeal has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner/appellant that rightly or wrongly, the petitioner/appellant was in service for more than eleven years. Therefore, he is entitled to get gratuity and other benefits.

In our considered view, this issue was not raised by the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition, moreover, when the initial appointment is bad in law and the same was affirmed up-to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, any wrongful appointment of the same person cannot be legalized either by the respondent authority or by the Constitutional Court. The highest Court of the country decided the matter against the petitioner/appellant.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere over the impugned order.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.