BALESHWAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us participated in a test conducted by the Office of Advocate General, Bihar between 1975 and 1985 and they were appointed as Assistants. Pursuant to the general competitive examination, recruitment had taken place to the Secretariat of the Government of Bihar and when the question of merger of the two caders arose, the Government took a decision on 14-8-1987 that all the Assistants who have been recruited through general competitive examination would rank senior to the Assistants who have not been appointed through general competitive examination but through other sources, while, of course, protecting their inter se seniority.

(2.) By an order made on 21-7-1991, the Government of Bihar decided that the office of Advocate General, would stand attached to the office of the Law Department of the Government of Bihar. When the question of merger of the two Departments arose, the Government followed Rule 14(2)(gha) that inter se seniority of the candidates appointed on the basis of the competitive examination and those appointed through other sources shall be determined on the basis that those appointed pursuant to the competitive examination shall rank senior and the position will be determined on the basis of the date of being put on probation below all successful candidates appointed on the basis of the result of the competitive examination. On this basis, final gradation list was published and the appellants were shown to be junior to the Assistants who have been appointed through competitive examination. Their representations against the same having been unsuccessful, they preferred a writ petition before the High Court.

(3.) The High Court held that the appellants admittedly did not take the general competitive examination held in the years 1971 and 1973 and that they have been selected on the basis of the test held by the Department of Advocate General and, therefore, they stood on the same footing as candidates recruited from other sources and not on the basis of the general competitive examination held for the recruitment of Assistants. It is this order of the High Court that is in challenge before us.