UMESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Rajgir (Nalanda), as contained in Annexure-2/1, by which, in purported compliance to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. LPA No. 448 of 2005, Petitioner has been reverted from Class-Ill post of Clerk to Class-IV post which he held earlier.

(2.) Copy of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court has been produced on record by the Respondents as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The order shows that the LPA of the writ Petitioners against the order of dismissal of the writ application was rejected by the Division Bench precisely on the ground that the said writ Petitioners were holding a technical post of Basic Health Worker in Class-IV and from there they had been promoted to the post of Clerk in class-Ill which was not a technical post. The Court also found that there were many other irregularities in the promotion. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the writ application of the Petitioners and had permitted recovery of the amount paid to them on account of promotion.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Petitioner is not covered by the said judgment of the Division Bench mainly on the ground that he was not holding a technical post in Class-IV and, therefore, he was entitled to promotion from non-technical Class-IV post to non-technical Class-Ill post and that the promotion of Petitioner was on the basis of a valid resolution of the District Establishment Committee. Therefore, the promotion of the Petitioner could not be held illegal. He further submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench has been applied in the case of the Petitioner blindfolded and without examining as to whether the Petitioner's case was covered by the said judgment or not and that Petitioner has not been given any opportunity to explain that his case was not covered by the said judgment.