SAYCEDUZ ZAFAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing two notifications dated 18th April, 1990. By the first notification the services of the petitioner had been withdrawn with immediate effect by the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, and by the other notification respondent No. 5, Sr0i Subodh Kumar Sinha, who was then Assistant Engineer in the Zila Parishad, Samastipur, has been directed to act as the Executive Officer of the Rosera Municipality in addition to his own duties.

(2.) There is no dispute that before the issuance of the aforesaid notifications, the petitioner, who is an employee of the Urban Development Department, had been deputed to the aforesaid Rosera Municipality to act as the Executive Officer of the said Municipality. On behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that he has been recalled to his parent department from the post of Executive Officer, Rosera Municipality, at the instance of Sri Subodh Kumar Sinha, respondent No. 5, on whose behalf a Member of Legislative Assembly addressed a letter dated 29-3-1990 to the Minister, Urban Development, Government of Bihar, requesting the Minister to withdraw the petitioner to the parent department and to post respondent No. 5, who was then Assistant Engineer in Zila Parishad, Samastipur, to act as Exective Officer of the said Municipality. A copy of that letter has been annexed to this writ application and marked as Annexture-9. The Member of the Legislative Assembly had made complaint against the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner and suggested that the services of the petitioner be withdrawn and in his place respondent No. 5 be posted as Executive Officer as early as possible. On that letter it appears that the Minister, Urban Development, had passed an order that a note be pat in terms of the recommendation made by the Member, Legislative Assembly. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the aforesaid communication his services had been withdrawn by his parent department.

(3.) The other ground of attack, which has been made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 being an employee of the Zila Parishad, could not have been posted as Executive Officer in view of the provisions of Section 37-A of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The relevant part of Section 37-A of the Act is as follows :