In this limited appeal challenging an order quashing a regularisation, the court dismissed the petition. The judges held that illegally appointed persons cannot claim regularisation or deletion of an impugned order once it is found to violate Article 14.
The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed; the order dated 23.9.2008 is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.630 of 2009
ANIL KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
5. 11.1.2010. We have heard Sri Chandrashekhar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant Anil Kumar Jha who questions the
propriety of order dated 23.9.2008 passed by a
writ court in C.W.J.C.No.4463 of 2003.
The learned senior counsel has submitted
that while passing the impugned judgement the
Hon’ble Judge was oblivious of two decisions of
this court which were rendered in situation
akin to that of the present appellant in which
similarly situated appointees who had enjoyed
the benefits of appointment for quite some long
period and whose service records had also been
consolidated, were ordered to be continued in
employment.
The contention has been contested
seriously by the learned SC 21 by citing before
us a decision reported in 1987 PLJR 1087(FB)
Reeta Mishra Vrs. State of Bihar and also
another Bench decision of this court reported in
2009(3) PLJR 202 Ashok Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar
which placed reliance upon Reeta Mishra (Supra)
to hold that illegally appointed persons cannot
seek regularization and cannot be directed to be
regularized. The very opening line of the
judgement passed by the Hon’ble Judge indicates
as to how the appellant was taken into
employment. The learned Judge has chosen to
describe the appointment as “back door entry
without compliance with article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is too well known to
be reiterated that if the very appointment is in
infraction of the rules, i.e., to say, that if
it has been made without following the rules of
appointment, one could not claim
regularization or safety of the Constitution of
India specially of Article 311 and provisions
contained under other part of the Constitution.
We are in complete agreement with the finding of
the learned Judge passing the impugned order and
in that light, we do not find any merit in the
L.P.A. The same is dismissed.
( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )
B.Kr.
( Rakesh Kumar, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether illegally appointed persons can seek regularization if the appointment violates constitutional rules.
Whether back door entries without compliance with Article 14 can be validated under Article 311.
Whether similar appointees continued in service by a writ court can be distinguished in illegal appointment cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reeta Mishra Vrs. State of BiharFollowed¶9
1987 PLJR 1087(FB)
Ashok Kumar Vrs. State of BiharFollowed¶9
2009(3) PLJR 202
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Jha
The State of Bihar & Ors
Dharnidhar Jha
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court