Nawlesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Jha and B.N.P. Singh, JJ.—This writ petition on behalf of the sole Petitioner has been filed for quashing the order of the Superintendent, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital contained in his memo No. 950/90 dated 30.5.90 cancelling his appointment. From perusal of the order it appears that the appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the same was made in excess of the sanctioned post.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wages on 3.9.98 by order of the Superintendent of the said Hospital and he worked continuously up to 30.3.90 i.e. until his appointment has been cancelled. The total period of service comes to 240 days and therefore his services could not be terminated save in accordance with the procedure contemplated u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

In our opinion, reference to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is wholly misplaced for the simple reason that the appointment of the Petitioner in the absence of sanctioned post was void ab initio. The dispute, in fact, is covered by decision of the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, That case related to appointment under the Tuberculosis programme of the Health Department in the State of Bihar. The provision has been made for recruitment of 2250 employees on sanctioned post as against them 6000 persons were appointed. Besides the Court held that any appointment made in excess of sanctioned post was totally unauthorised, incompetent and void.

Apart from the fact that sanctioned posts were not available the Petitioner being a daily wage employee cannot claim for regularisation of services. If termination of services of temporary employee cannot be challenged, surely, the daily wagers stand at lesser footing. The impugned order was passed more than 13 years ago. While admitting the writ petition on 29.1.92 no interim order was passed. The Petitioner has thus remained out of job for 13 years. Though counsel for the Petitioner would not take a definite stand, it is obvious that the Petitioner must have found another avenue of livelihood.

In the above premises, no case is made out for interference by this Court. The petition stands dismissed.