JAI NANDAN PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioners came to be appointed in the subordinate education service on various point of time and they even climbed the ladder depending upon structuring of the post and position effected by the State of Bihar.

(3.) The fact is that they continued to be the officers of subordinate education service (U.D). when due to exigency of service, by a set of notifications, they were asked to shoulder higher responsibility of Class-II and Class-I posts in the Education Department. This fact is not disputed but those notifications also indicate that the posting of the Petitioners in the exigency of service will also not entitle them to the privilege of pay scale and post on which they were posted. The notifications are very emphatic that they will continue to draw their salary on the substantive post.