Case Background
The dispute arose from appointments of Class III and Class IV employees in the Health Department of Bihar. A large number of such employees were later scrutinised by a High Level Committee formed under directions issued in LPA No. 946 of 2003 (The State of Bihar and others vs. Purendra Sulan Kit and others).
The Committee examined whether these employees had been properly appointed. It placed each employee into categories such as “illegal”, “forged” or “irregular” appointment. The respondent in this appeal, a health department employee posted in Madhubani district, was placed in the “illegal” category and terminated from service.
The employee filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11806 of 2009 before the Patna High Court. He challenged the High Level Committee’s report dated 9.9.2008 in so far as it treated his appointment as illegal. He sought quashing of that report and restoration of his job.
The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge. On 12.11.2009, the Single Judge allowed the petition, quashed the inquiry report against the petitioner, and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The State of Bihar and its health authorities then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 8 of 2014) under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, challenging that order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench comprised Hon’ble the Chief Justice (authoring the oral judgment) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar. The appeal was heard on 06.12.2021.
At the start, the Bench noted that the State had “seriously challenged the authenticity of the documents placed on record by the writ petitioner-respondent”. Because of this challenge, the Court observed that disputed questions of fact had arisen which could not be easily adjudicated in the writ proceedings.
Before setting out its own directions, the Bench reproduced in full the earlier judgment of the Single Judge dated 12.11.2009, to show the background and reasoning that had led to the writ being allowed.
The Single Judge had recorded that the petitioner was one of the Health Department employees whose cases were scrutinised by the High Level Committee constituted pursuant to the earlier LPA No. 946 of 2003. The Committee had treated his service as “illegal”.
According to the petitioner’s case, as summarised by the Single Judge, the Committee had itself fixed guidelines for categorising employees as illegal, forged or irregular. For being placed in the “irregular” category, four criteria were laid down:
(i) appointment on a sanctioned post,
(ii) possession of the requisite qualification,
(iii) appointment by the competent authority, and
(iv) continuation on the post for more than ten years without the intervention of any court order.
The petitioner claimed he fulfilled all four criteria. Therefore, under the Committee guidelines, he should have been placed in the “irregular” category and not in the “illegal” category. The Single Judge noted this contention and accepted that the standard fixed by the Committee had been ignored in his case.
The petitioner also pointed out that his case, he said, was fully covered by an earlier judgment of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases, where similar health department employees had succeeded and the inquiry reports were quashed.
Taking these reasons together, the Single Judge found that the petitioner’s case was fully covered by the decision in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous matters, and therefore quashed the inquiry report against him. The Single Judge further held that, according to the guidelines of the inquiry report itself, the petitioner should have been treated as an “irregular” appointee. For such a category, there was a “specific direction for his reinstatement on the post”. On that basis, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
The State appealed against this order in LPA No. 8 of 2014. During the pendency of the appeal, a significant development occurred. On 10.11.2020, the Division Bench recorded that counsel for the State had drawn attention to a Supreme Court judgment dated 17.10.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11885 of 2012), titled State of Bihar vs. Devendra Sharma. The Bench recorded that, according to the State, the matter in issue was “squarely covered” by that Supreme Court decision.
On that date, the matter was adjourned to enable counsel for the writ petitioner to obtain instructions and to study the Supreme Court judgment. Later, when the appeal was finally heard, both sides jointly requested the Court to pass appropriate orders in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
By the time of final hearing on 06.12.2021, it was accepted before the Division Bench that the question whether such appointments of Health Department employees were “illegal” or “irregular” now stood settled by the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar and Others vs. Devendra Sharma, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466.
The Division Bench did not itself undertake a factual verification of the respondent’s appointment. Instead, the Court held that the writ petitioner’s case now had to be “factually verified in view of the principles enunciated” in Devendra Sharma.
On that basis, and taking note of the joint request of both parties, the Court disposed of the appeal with detailed directions to the authorities:
First, it directed the appellant authority (i.e., the State health authorities) to consider the case of the writ petitioner-respondent in the light of the ratio laid down in Devendra Sharma. The Bench thus set aside the earlier finality of the Single Judge’s direction and required a fresh administrative decision consistent with Supreme Court law.
Second, the Court laid down a clear procedure and timeline. It required the writ petitioner-respondent to approach the appellant authority within four weeks. For that four-week period, “status quo as on date” was to be maintained. This meant that whatever position existed on the date of the judgment would continue temporarily.
The Court then made it clear that, if the petitioner failed to approach the authority within that time, there would be “automatic vacation of the order, with all consequences to follow.” In other words, the protective order and status quo would lapse automatically and the State would be free to act as if the directions had not been obtained.
Third, if the petitioner did file such a request within four weeks, the authority was directed to consider and decide it “in accordance with law” within two months thereafter. The authority was required to pass a reasoned order, accounting for all attending facts and circumstances of the case and specifically including the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Devendra Sharma.
The Court emphasised that, as part of this exercise, the authority must examine whether the petitioner’s appointment was “illegal or irregular”, and then act with “all resultant consequences”. This meant that depending on the category determined, different service consequences would follow, as settled in the Supreme Court precedent.
The Bench also directed that a copy of the order assigning reasons must be supplied to the writ petitioner-respondent. This ensures transparency and enables the employee to know why a decision has been taken in his favour or against him.
Finally, the Court reserved liberty to the writ petitioner-respondent to approach the Court again, “should the need so arise subsequently, on the same and subsequent cause of action.” Thus, if the authority’s fresh decision is adverse or not in line with the Supreme Court’s law, the petitioner can again seek judicial review.
With these observations and directions, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of. Any interlocutory applications pending in the appeal were also disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for many health department employees in Bihar whose appointments were questioned by departmental committees. It shows that, after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Devendra Sharma, the key question is whether an appointment is “illegal” or “irregular”, and that this must be checked carefully in each case.
For the employee in this case, the Patna High Court did not directly confirm his job. Instead, it gave him a clear path: he must approach the department, which is bound to examine his case afresh according to the Supreme Court’s principles and give a reasoned order within two months.
The judgment also shows that when there are serious disputes about documents and facts, the High Court may not decide everything in a writ case. It can instead send the matter back to the department to verify facts and apply the correct legal test.
For other employees in similar situations, this decision indicates that they should rely on the Supreme Court’s Devendra Sharma ruling and ensure that the authority properly checks whether their appointment really falls in the illegal category or only in the irregular category, which may carry different consequences.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: How should the validity of the respondent’s appointment in the Health Department be decided in light of later Supreme Court law on illegal and irregular appointments?
Answer: The Patna High Court directed the State authorities to freshly examine and decide the respondent’s case by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Devendra Sharma (2020) 15 SCC 466. - Issue: Should the Single Judge’s direction for automatic reinstatement with consequential benefits be sustained in appeal?
Answer: The Division Bench did not affirm that direction; instead, it required a factual verification and a fresh administrative decision, leaving the final outcome to the authority acting under the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466.
- The Single Judge referred to CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases (details not provided in this judgment).
- The High Level Committee was constituted pursuant to directions in LPA No. 946 of 2003 (The State of Bihar and others vs. Purendra Sulan Kit and others), as mentioned in the Single Judge’s order.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 2014 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11806 of 2009
Case Title: The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Binay Kumar Jha
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Citation: 2022 (1) 886
Advocates: For the appellants (State): Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG-6; Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate. For the respondent (writ petitioner): Mr. Prafful Chandra Jha, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against an order in a civil writ jurisdiction case concerning termination and categorisation of a Health Department appointment as illegal or irregular.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM4IzIwMTQjMSNO-EOpj45uDWhQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
