IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

I.A. No. _______/2016

(Arising out of LPA No. …………../2016)

IN THE MATTER OF :-

An application under

Article 226 of the

Constitution of India

for leave to file

present Letters Patent

Appeal.

A N D

IN THE MATTER OF :-

The Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Chancellor,

Governor’s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

… PETITIONER-APPELLANT

-:Versus:-

1. The State of Jharkhand through the

secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of

 2

Agriculture and Sugarcane Development having

office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda,

District- Ranchi.

2. Birsa Agriculture University through its

Registrar having office at Kanke P.O. and P.S.-

Kanke Town and District- Ranchi.

3. The Vice Chancellor, Birsa Agriculture University

having office at Kanke P.O. and P.S. Kanke Town,

District- Ranchi.

4. The Director (Administration), Birsa Agriculture

University having office at Kanke, P.O. and P.S.-

Kanke Town, District- Ranchi.

. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

5. Ritesh Kumar Tiwary son of Sri Krishna Tiwary

resident of Laxman Nagar, C/2, Kanke Road, P.O.-

Kanke, P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi

6. Devenendra Kumar Singh son of late Singheshwar

Singh resident of Khalari Bazar Tanr, Ghrit

Ghora, P.O. and P.S.l- Khalari, District- Ranchi.

 3

7. Sanjay Kumar son of Sri Ganga Nath Ram, resident

of Sector-III/A, Qr. No. 495, P.O. and P.S.-

Bokaro, District- Bokaro.

8. Sandeep Kumar Paswan son of Bindeshwar Ram,

resident of Village- Kathi Tanr, P.O. and P.S.-

Ratu, District- Ranchi.

9. Mukesh Ram, son of Ashok Ram resident of

Mishigonda, Kanke Road, Jawahar Nagar, P.O.-

Gonda, District- Ranchi.

10. Anita Kumari daughter of Shri Gopi Oraon resident

of Sukla Colony, New Area, P.O. and P.S.-

Doranda, District-Ranchi

11. Srinath Sahdeo son of Sri Kali Nath Sahdeo,

resident of village- Patratoli, P.O. and P.S.-

Kanke, District- Ranchi.

12. Sanjay Kumar Sahdeo, Son of Sri Harendra Nath

Sahdeo, resident of village- Patratoli, P.O. and

p.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi.

 4

13. Avinash Kumar son of late Ramesh Turi resident of

Boriya, P.O.- Boriya, via- Tinpahar, P.S.- Boria,

District- Sahebganj.

14. Sri Virendra Prasad Sah, son of Sri Uma Shankar

Sah resident of village and P.O.- Raikinari,

P.S.- Taljhari, District- Dumka.

15. Akhilesh Kumar son of Dwarika Thakur resident of

Sector-III, Market, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa,

District- Ranchi.

16. Santosh Singh son of Dam Singh, resident of

village and P.O. and P.S. Kundahit, District-

Jamtara.

17. Sanjeet Kumar Mitra son of Haradhan Mitra

resident of village and P.O.- Sagjuria, P.S.-

Nala, District- Jamtara.

18. Umesh Kumar son of late Jay Nandan Singh resident

of BAU Miniels Quarter, P.O. and P.S.- Kanke,

District- Ranchi.
 5

19. Ravi Kumar son of Ramchandra Sonar, resident of

village- Boriya Pool, Arsende, P.O.- Boriya,

P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

…PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS.

To

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Virender Singh, the Chief

Justice of the Jharkhand

High Court at Ranchi and

His other companion Judges

of the said Hon’ble High

Court.

The humble memo of appeal

on behalf of the

petitioner, named above:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. That in the instant interlocutory application,

the petitioner prays for granting leave to

 6

file the Present letters Patent Appeal as the

petitioner was not made party in the writ

petition and his right has been affected by

the impugned order dated 19.2.2016 passed in

WPS No. 3222/2014.

2. That the instant Letters Patent Appeal is

directed against the order dated 19.2.2016

(CAV on 11.12.2015) passed by Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Pramath Patnaik in WP(S) No. 3222/2014

and its analogous cases, whereby and

whereunder, the writ petition filed by the

petitioners- respondents is disposed of

holding that the impugned order of termination

dated 13.6.2014 being not legally sustainable,

is hereby, quashed and set aside, on the anvil

of the premises and the reasoning given in the

foregoing paragraphs and on the touchstones of

fair play, principles of natural justice and

principle of audi alteram partem, and the

 7

respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioners in services on their respective

posts forthwith. However, liberty is reserved

with the respondents to initiate de novo

proceedings, if so legally advised.

3. That the petitioner-appellant has not been

impleaded as party respondent in the writ

petition by the petitioner and as such no

counter affidavit could be filed by the

appellant in the writ petition, although, the

appellant was a necessary party.

4. That in the writ petition, the petitioners–

respondents has prayed for the following

relief(s);

a. For quashing of Memo No. 911

dated 13.6.14 so far its relates to the

present petitioners by which the service of

the petitioners has been terminated without

issuance of any show cause to the

 8

petitioners which is in utter violation of

principle of substantial natural justice

and also corrigendum bearing Memo no.

911(A) dated 13.6.2014 by which, the name

of one of the persons at serial no. 31 was

missing, hence fresh office order was

issued, even no enquiry report has been

given nor the petitioners have ever been

allowed to participate in the enquiry even

they have demanded for the enquiry report

but the same has not been provided to them.

b. For direction upon the

respondent authorities to pay the admitted

due arrear of salary for the period

25.5.2011 to 31.7.12 and 1.4.2014 to

13.6.2014, the period during which the

present petitioners have actually worked

but the same has not been paid till date.

c. For declaration of the action

of the respondent authorities in issuance

 9

of impugned order of termination is illegal

and in utter violation of principle of

substantial natural justice and also on the

ground of ex parte enquiry in which they

have never been allowed to participate and

entire enquiry has been done at the behest

of the complainants who are unsuccessful

candidates.

d. For not to give effect the

impugned order vide Memo No. 911 and 911(A)

dated 13.6.2014 till the disposal of this

writ petition.

5. That it is stated that an advertisement

bearing Advertisement Nos. 01/2008 and 2/2011

dated 4.6.2011 has been published by Birsa

Agricultural University for appointment on on

different posts of class-III and IV against

the sanctioned and vacant posts which was also

included the backlog vacancies.

 10

6. That it is stated that after appointment of

the petitioner- respondent, some complaint has

been received by the appellant against in

Advertisement Nos.1/2008 and 2/2011 with

respect to favouritism and illegal appointment

made by the then Vice Chancellor, Birsa

Agricultural University and the University was

directed not to proceed with any appointment

till further order.

7. That it is stated that the appellant vide

order dated 4.8.11 directed the then OSD (J)

to enquire into the allegations relating to

appointment made by the University authorities

that are either under process or that have

been made during the past few months in

exercise of his power u/s 20(7) of the JAU

Act.

8. That it is stated that the then OSD(J)

submitted his enquiry report on 19.4.12

 11

whereby he was opined that there is nothing on

record to suggest that the persons given

employment as Mazdoors were working on daily

wages at BAU from before. He has also opined

that Screening/Selection/Interview Board were

not given any guideline by the University and

they have not followed the due process. The

experience/qualification certificates of the

candidates were not scrutinized and tallied

with their respective originals and their

genuineness has not been verified, some of

which in course of enquiry found to be false.

Cumulatively he has opined that the whole

process of interview board constitution was

just an eye wash. Thereafter the enquiry

report was sent to the State Government for

its opinion in terms of Section 20(8) of the

BAU Act.
 12

9. That it is stated that the appellant vide

order dated 21.7.12, copy of the said enquiry

report was also sent to the Vice Chancellor,

BAU directing him to show cause the concerned

newly appointed employees and submit a

response filed by them which was duly

submitted by the VC, BAU, Kanke, Ranchi.

10. That it is stated that the then OSD(J) of the

appellant also analyzed all the responses and

finally recommended that the services of all

the appointees against the Advertisement Nos.

1/2008 and 2/2011 to be terminated with

immediate effect. Thereafter, vide order dated

15.10.12 the appellant, however directed that

the opinion of OSD(J) to be sent to the Govt.

of Jharkhand, Department of Agriculture and

Sugarcane Development and the then Vice

Chancellor was asked to submit a show cause

 13

explanation with regard to his omission and

commission in the said process within a month.

11. That it is stated that the petitioner-

appellant in course of consultation with the

Advocate General, to follow the principle of

natural justice for termination of the

illegally appointed employees, One Man

Judicial Enquiry Committee, headed by Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Vikramaditya Prasad (Retd.) was

constituted vide memo no. 1414 dated 29.4.14

with a direction to submit the report within

three months.

12. That it is stated that thereafter, One Man

Judicial Enquiry Committee submitted its

report and opined that “everything was done in

haste, the office notes were ignored, the lip

service was given to procedures, the govt.

rules were not reasonably and properly

followed even the rules of the statute were

 14

not followed/ignored, favoritism was apparent,

those having better length of service were

ignored through the whole object behind the

appointment was to regularize the services of

those who were working since many long years,

in nut shell transparency was a causality.”

13. That it is stated that however, the

petitioner- appellant after considering the

two enquiry reports, firstly by the then

OSD(J) and Secondly by the Chairman of One Man

Judicial Enquiry Committee, comes to the

conclusion on the following points:-

a.That none of the two advertisements No.

1/2008 and 2/2011 anywhere it has been

mentioned that only candidates already

working at daily wages are fit to apply

against vacant posts.

b.That in advertisement no. 1/2008 it is

mentioned that the daily wages working

 15

with the university shall be given

concession by way of age relaxation for

the period they have been working with

the university.

c.That the university in its 2nd meeting

of Board of Management held on 4.1.1982

vide Agenda No. 43 has already resolved

to adopt recruitment rules and

procedures as laid down by the Govt. of

Bihar, Department of Personnel from time

to time and authorize the VC of BAU to

accommodate experienced daily wage

workers in suitable cases only.

d.That in view of the above mentioned

resolution it cannot be said that the

university was not bound by recruitment

rules and procedures laid down by Govt.

of Bihar, Department of Personnel with

regard to appointment of Class III and

 16

Class-IV employees and Junior Engineers

etc. The only savior is that by the said

resolution the VC has been given

authority to accommodate experience

daily paid workers in suitable cases.

e.That, the above said authority of the VC

has further been elaborated by Director

(Admn.) BAU, Kanke, Ranchi in his letter

sent to OSD(J) dated 30.8.12 wherein it

has been mentioned that in view of this

resolution the University decided to

relax the qualification for posts of

Peon, Sweeper Cleaner, Riding Master,

Warg Parichar, Animal Attendant, Kamdar,

Mali/Sardar Mali, pressman, Farm Sardar,

Halwaha to accommodate long experience

of daily paid workers on the posts for

which literate/less qualified persons

are sufficient to carry out the work.

 17

f.That, therefore, apparently under the

above discussed provisions of law,

Advertisement Nos.1/2008 and 2/2011 in

fact, mentioned the lesser qualification

for the posts advertised in derogation

with whatever is prescribed under the

State Govt. rules, is to benefit only

those employees who were daily wages

worker in BAU since long and that too

for the jobs for which being literate or

having higher academic qualification is

of little relevance vis-à-vis possessing

appropriate skill and experience for the

assigned job.

g.That, the opinion and finding of the one

man Judicial Enquiry Committee it is

clear that the procedures and the rules

of the Statute has not been followed and

favoritism was apparent. It has also

 18

been opined that the reservation roster

has not been followed, the advertisement

was not wide enough, the scrutiny

committee had not performed its job and

unmerited persons were sent for

interview, the interview process was not

transparent and the whole selection

procedure was bereft of transparency.

h.That the OSD(J) while scrutinizing the

show cause reply and opinion of all the

appointees has classified 13 posts as IV

grade employees which are Peon, Sweeper

Cleaner, Riding Master, Class room

attendant, Medial Compounder, Lab

Attendant, Animal Attendant, Kamdar,

Sardar Mali, Pressman, Farm Sardar,

Halwaha (Ploughman) while under 3rd

Grade employees the post of Fitter,

Electrician, Mistry, Driver, Senior

 19

Mistry, Harberium Assistant, Surveyor,

Mechanic, Laboratory Assistant, Takie

Operator, Field Overseer has been

included. Under the category of Junior

Engineer are junior engineer Electrical

and Civil Estimator.

i.That, after scrutiny of the show cause

reply the then OSD(J) in his opinion has

recommended termination of services of

all the appointed candidates against

Advertisement No. 1/2008 and 2/2011,

which however, has not been implemented

and instead One Man Judicial Enquiry

Committee was set up who has also been

submitted his report under

consideration.

14. That it is stated that the petitioner-

appellant, after considering the entire facts

 20

directed the University to grant age

relaxation and lowered the standard of

academic qualification in view of relevant

resolution of 2nd Board Management Meeting in

exception of the adopting the State Govt.

rules, all the candidates who have been

appointed on the post of Peon, Sweeper, Riding

Master, warg Parichar, Animal Attendant,

Kamdar, Sardar Mali Pressman, Farm Sardar and

Halwaha (Ploughman) were already working as

Daily Wages with BAU be permitted to continue

with their job.

15. That it is stated that thereafter, the Vice

Chancellor, BAU, Ranchi passed the impugned

order dated 13.6.14, whereby, the appointment

of the persons including the petitioner–

respondent of the present appeal made by

illegal means have been terminated.

 21

16. That as is evident from the contents of the

letter no. 1143 dated 12.06.14 the

appointments of the petitioner-respondent of

the present appeal has been held to be illegal

only after individual show cause reply

submitted earlier to the Vice Chancellor, BAU,

was duly considered along with opinion of the

university.

17. That it is stated that in the aforesaid facts

and circumstances, it appear that the entire

actions taken by the Vice Chancellor have been

initiated upon the direction made by the

petitioner-appellant.

18. That it appears that the petitioner-appellant

is necessary party in the writ proceeding

though the he has not been made party in the

writ petition, which is absolutely illegal and

against the materials on record.

 22

19. That, after passing the impugned order dated

19.2.2016, the petitioner-appellant has come

to know that the said writ petition is

disposed of holding that the impugned order of

termination dated 13.6.2014 is not legally

sustainable and the respondent authorities are

directed to reinstate the respondents of the

present appeal in their services on their

respective posts.

20. That, this interlocutory application is being

made bona fide and in the interest of justice.

It is, therefore, prayed

that Your Lordships may

graciously be pleased to

allow this interlocutory

application and further be

pleased to grant leave to

file the Present Letters

Patent Appeal as the

 23

petitioner was not made

party in the writ petition

and his right has been

affected by the impugned

order dated 19.2.2016 passed

in WPS No. 3222/2014.

And/or

Be pleased to pass such

other order or orders as

Your Lordships may deem fit

and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner-

appellant shall ever pray.

 24

A F F I D A V I T

I, …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………., do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:-
1. That I am posted as ………………………………………. In the
office of the Governor’s Secretariat and as
such I am well acquainted with all the facts
and circumstances of this case.
2. That I have gone through the contents of this
application and affidavit, which I fully
understood.
3. That the statements made in paragraphs
…………………………………………………………are true to my knowledge
and those made in paragraphs ………………………………….…are
based on information derived from the records
of the case, verily believed by me to be true
and rest are by way of submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.
4. Verified, sworn and signed by me on …………day of
…………, 2016 at Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.