Disposed¶29

Pankaj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Feb 2024CWJC/2950/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CWJC No. 2950 of 2023; PIL; 71 illegal appointments; Health Department; Muzaffarpur; Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer; terminations (59 total; 11 Muzaffarpur; 12 Hajipur); Supreme Court judgments; no enquiry by authorities; I.A. No. 01 of 2023 intervention by terminated employees; remedy of terminated employees before appropriate authority/Court; rights reserved; no observation on validity; writ petition closed; K. Vinod Chandran, CJ (author); Rajiv Roy, J; decided 02-02-2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition (PIL) was closed, with the terminated employees' right to agitate in the appropriate forum reserved and no observation made on the validity of the appointments or the termination. ¶29

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether 71 illegal appointments were made to the Health Department in the district of Muzaffarpur, as alleged in the public interest litigation. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

There was no further reason to keep the public interest litigation pending, and the writ petition stands closed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The terminations were not on account of the public interest litigation.

¶27

Key takeaways

Where the State makes an enquiry into illegal appointments based on Supreme Court judgments and terminates the appointees, the remedy of the terminated person is before the appropriate authority / Court, which shall look into whether the termination accords with the Supreme Court judgment.ratio¶25
The right of the terminated employees to agitate in the appropriate forum is expressly reserved.ratio¶28
The Court makes no observation about the validity of either the appointments or the termination.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2950 of 2023, Patna High Court) alleging 71 illegal appointments in the Health Department of Muzaffarpur. The State's counter affidavit dated 18.07.2023 reported that, acting on Supreme Court judgments, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer had secured terminations of altogether 59 persons (including 11 from Muzaffarpur and 12 from Hajipur), while it was also submitted that no enquiry was carried out by the authorities. Intervenors in I.A. No.01 of 2023 (terminated employees) alleged their termination flowed from the PIL; the Court noted that no reference to the PIL appeared in the termination orders. Held (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ): the terminations were not on account of the public interest litigation; where the State terminates appointees after an enquiry based on Supreme Court judgments, the terminated person's remedy is before the appropriate authority / Court to test conformity with the Supreme Court judgment; the terminated employees' right to agitate was reserved; no observation was made on the validity of the appointments or terminations. Writ petition closed. Bench: K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Rajiv Roy, J (order per the Chief Justice). Decided 02-02-2024.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2950 of 2023

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Pankaj Kumar Son of Late Bashisth Narayan Choudhary, Resident of Laxmi Nagar, Fardogola, Pakahi, P.S. - Sadar, District - Mujaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Mujaffarpur.

¶9

The Regional Dyputy Director, Health Services, Mujaffarpur.

¶10

The Civil Surgeon, Mujaffarpur.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhakar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt. Binita Singh (Sc28)

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

12 02-02-2024

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties concenred.

¶19

The petitioner has filed the above Public Interest

¶20

Litigation alleging that there has been 71 illegal appointments made to the District of Muzaffarpur in the Health Department. The State has filed counter affidavit dated 18.07.2023 specifically pointing out that in Muzaffarpur, the Civil Surgeoncum-Chief Medical Officer has taken action in the matter of illegal appointments and taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and altogether 59, 11 from Muzaffarpur and further 12 persons from Hajipur were

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.2950 of 2023(12) dt.02-02-2024 2/3

¶22

terminated. It is also submitted that the authorities never carried out an enquiry with respect to such illegal appointments made.

¶23

An intervening application has been filed as I.A. No.01 of 2023 wherein the petitioners therein alleged that they have been terminated by reason of the Public Interest Litigation. We pointed out that there is no order passed in the Public Interest Litigation and even on the two earlier instances, when the matter was posted before Court, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in fact earlier counter affidavit filed by the State asserted that the appointments of the petitioners herein were proper. Later they have been terminated only on production of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Public Interest Litigation.

¶24

To a specific query whether the public interest litigation has been referred to in the termination order, it is admitted that no such reference is made.

¶25

If the State makes an enquiry into the illegal appointments, based on Supreme Court judgments and terminate such appointees then the remedy of the terminated person is before the appropriate authority / Court who shall look into whether the termination is in accordance with the Supreme

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.2950 of 2023(12) dt.02-02-2024 3/3

¶27

Court judgment or not. We are definite that the terminations were not on account of the public interest litigation.

¶28

In any event we see no further reason to keep the public interest litigation pending. However, we make it clear that the terminated employees would be reserved their right to agitate in the appropriate forum. We do not make any observation about the validity of either the appointments or the termination.

¶29

The writ petition stands closed.

¶30

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶31

( Rajiv Roy, J)

¶32

sanjeev/-

¶33

Pankaj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vikas Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Pravin Kumar Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Bhuntun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suman Devi (a Sole Proprietorship Firm) Vs The Union of India

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs The Election Commission of India