SATYADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, quashing the order dated 8th May, 1980, copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ application, of the Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Chak Inspector-cum-Survey Inspector to the post of Amin due to their failure to pass a practical test for determination of suitability for appointment as Chak Inspector-cum-Survey Inspector held on the 7th to 9th of December, 1979.

(2.) The relevant facts are these.-(a) In November, 1977 petitioner nos. 1 to 6 were Amins and petitioner no. 7 was a draftsman serving in the Department of Consolidation under the Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 2). That petitioner no. 1 was also an Amin at that time is not contradicted by the letter, copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ application. By that letter of the Deputy Director of Co nsolidation, the petitioner had been merely permitted to draw pay in the scale of pay admissible to the Chak Inspector-cum-Survey Inspector (hereinafter referred to as "the Chak Inspector) because he was previously appointed as Amin on temporary post which had been abolished, In November, 1977 a decision was taken at the meeting attended by the Director of Consolidation and the various Deputy Directors of Consolidation, that the newly created temporary posts of 132 Chak Inspectors should be filled up by promotion from the rank of Amins or draftsmen. One of the decisions arrived at in the said meeting was that the minimum educational qualification for promotion to the aforesaid posts of Chak Inspectors would be the passing of the Matriculation Examination and experience as Amin for a minimum period of five years, which, in certain circumstances, could be reduced to four years, of experience. In pursuance of that decision, the petitioners were appointed to the posts of Chak Inspectors by various letters in January, 1978. Copies of appointment letters of the petitioners, except petitioner no. 4, are Annexures 7 to 10 to this writ application. All those promotions were temporary. The promotions of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were described as temporary (vide Annexures 7 and 9) whereas the promotions of petitioner nos. 6 and 7 were describ ed as ad hoc (vide Annexures 8 and 10). (b) It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 Director of Consolidation, and the fa ct has not been seriously disputed and the same must be taken as accepted, that subsequently the State Government took the following policy decision about the recruitment of Chak Inspector :-

(3.) In the writ application and in the arguments advanced before us, the aforesaid order of reservation has been impugned on two main grounds. The first ground is that the subsequent order of the Government requiring the petitioners to appear at and pass the test being a mere executive instruction could not operate to the detriment of the petitioners and, therefore, the order reverting the petitioners on the ground that they had not passed the practical test was illegal because no such condition had been attached at the time of their initial promotion to the post of Chak Inspector. The second ground which was argued somewhat faintly is that the reversion order violates Article 311 of the Constitution.