IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.192 of 2012

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10437 of 2006

With

Interlocutory Application No.1323 of 2012

With

Interlocutory Application No.1324 of 2012

In

Letters Patent Appeal No.192 of 2012

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

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Govt. Public Health Engineering Deptt., Vishwashariya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna

2. The Engineer in Chief-cum-Special Secretary Public Health Engineering Deptt., Vishwashariya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer (Civil) Public Health Engineering Deptt., Vishwashariya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna

4. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Public Health Engineering Deptt., Patna

5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Arra

6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Patna, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna

7. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Bhabhua

8. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Sasaram

9. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Patna East

.... .... Respondents-Appellants

Versus

1. Siyaram Singh S/O Late Loku Singh R/O Village- Tenera, P.O.- Parwat Pur, P.S.-Chainpura, Distt.- Bhabhua (Kaimur)

2. Bendeshwari Prasad Singh S/O Sri Radheshyam Singh R/O village-Hariharpur, P.O.- Chaugai, P.S.- Gurari, Distt.- Rohtas

3. Baleshwar Thakur S/O Late Mewa Thakur R/S- Mohalla-Tiwari Tola,

Bhabhua, P.O.+P.S.- Bhabhua, Distt.- Bhabhua (Kaimur)

4. Sri Raj Nath Singh S/O Sri Ram Bisun Singh R/O Village-Chintamanpur, P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.-Rohtas

5. Brindawan Pandey S/O Late Vishwanath Pandey R/O Village- Siya Pokhar, P.O.- Bambhar Khas, P.S.- Mohaniya, Distt.- Bhabhua (Kaimur)

6. Upendra Ram S/O Late Prasad Sao R/O Village + P.O.- Paraiya, P.S.- Paraiya, Distt.- Gaya

7. Rajbansh Singh S/O Late Jagat Singh R/O Village + P.O.-Kala Pahar, P.S.-Navinagar, Distt.- Aurangabad

8. Raj Kumar S/O Sri Shivbachan Ram R/O Village + P.O.- Sakala Bazar, P.S.- Karakat (Gurari), Distt.- Rohtas

9. Devendra Singh S/O Sri Ramjee Singh R/O Village- Saraiya, P.S.- Goh, P.S.-Goh, Distt.- Aurangabad

10. Kalamuddin Ansari S/O Md. Sattar Ansari R/O Village- Bhusloa, P.O.+P.S.- Darihat, District- Rohtas

11. Suryadev Prasad S/O Sri Galu Prasad R/O Village + P.O.- Bahadurpur, P.S.- Tariyasutan, Distt.- Kusinagar (U.P.)

12. Raghunath Ram S/O Late Sukhdev Kapat R/O Village- Bhore Shahpur, P.O.- Bhore Tayram, P.S.- Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur

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

.... .... Respondents-Respondents

Appearance :

For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-10

Mr. Sunil Kumar, A.C. to AAG-10

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

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

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

3. 12-03-2012 Learned advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar appears for the appellants. He states that the grievance made by the writ petitioner-respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 had been redressed pending the writ petition. The present Appeal is, therefore, directed against the writ petitioner-respondent Nos. 1, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

Interlocutory Application No. 1323 of 2012:

The delay of 160 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 192 of 2012:

This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 19th January 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 10437 of 2006.

The respondent-writ petitioners were the daily wage employees employed under the appellant nos. 7, 8 and 9. Their service came to be terminated on 13th April 2002 as their appointment was irregular. Pending the petition, in view of the Government policy contained in the Government Resolution dated 16th March 2006, six of the respondents were reinstated in service whereas the rest of the six (hereinafter referred to as 'the aggrieved writ petitioners') could not be absorbed for want of vacancy. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge has held that the aggrieved writ petitioners were senior to the six writ petitioners who were absorbed and that the aggrieved writ petitioners fell within four corners of the Government Resolution dated 16th March 2006. Consequently, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of termination of the service of the aggrieved writ petitioners and has directed that the aggrieved writ petitioners be reinstated in service and be duly absorbed.

Feeling aggrieved, the State Government has

preferred this Appeal.

Learned advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar has appeared for the appellants. He has relied upon the Government Resolution dated 16th March 2006. He has submitted that under the said Resolution it was decided that all those daily wage employees who had completed five years' service as on 11th December 1990 and had completed 240 days' service in each year be absorbed in regular service on available vacancies in order of their age. In other words, irrespective of their seniority the older persons were given preference over the younger persons. The aggrieved writ petitioners were younger to the six writ petitioners whose services have been regularized. The aggrieved writ petitioners could not be absorbed in service for want of vacancy in respective categories. The decision of the Committee dated 4th April 2008 to absorb six of the writ petitioners who were older and not the aggrieved writ petitioners was in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 16 th March 2006. The learned single Judge has erred in not appreciating that the Government decision was to absorb the daily wage employees in order of their age and not in order of their seniority. The learned single Judge has also erred in not appreciating that in absence of the available vacancy the aggrieved writ petitioners could not be absorbed in regular service.

We do appreciate the reasons for which the aggrieved writ petitioners could not be absorbed in service. However, the reasons assigned in counter affidavit are not reflected in the decision dated 4th April 2008. The decision dated 4th April 2008 is, in our opinion, vague and does not disclose satisfactory reason for not absorbing the services of the aggrieved writ petitioners.

It is a settled principle of law that a document must

speak for itself. A document cannot be explained or improved by filing affidavit. That exactly is what is done in the present case.

In absence of satisfactory reasons recorded in the decision dated 4th April 2008; in view of the admitted fact that the aggrieved writ petitioners had completed five years' service by 11th December 1990 and that they had served for 240 days in every year, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

The Appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No.1324 of 2012 stands disposed of.

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Pawan/-