PRAKASH CHANDRA AZAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against an order of the learned writ court dated 30.6.1999 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1578 of 1990, whereby the learned writ Court in view of the fact that the post in question was under the reserved category upheld the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction) Circle, Bhagalpur dated 14.11.1990 promoting respondent no. 6 to the post of Head Clerk as he was the senior most clerk in the reserved category.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that he had been appointed as a lower division correspondence clerk in the year 1973 under the Rural Engineering. Organisation Circle, Bhagalpur. In the year 1976, the aforesaid post was upheld as upper division clerk in 1980 the post of lower division clerk and upper division clerk were merged into one cadre. The appellant was promoted as Junior Selection Grade -cum -Head Clerk by order dated 19.8.1992. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on the gradation list published by the Rural Engineering Organisation (Advance Planning), Circle Bhagalpur which was published in 1983. it has further been contended that after merger of the department of Rural Engineering Organisation as Building Division, Munger, a provisional gradation list was published by the Superintending Engineer, Bhagalpur which wrongly placed the appellant at a lower place. It has further been contended that one Lala Bhagwan Prasad, who was holding the post of Head Clerk retired on 31.3.1990 and the appellant being the senior most took charge from him and had been working on the said post. However, respondent Superintending Engineer by his order dated 14.11.1990 wrongly promoted respondent no. 6 belonging to the category of Scheduled Caste employee on the post of the Head Clerk treating the said post to be under the reserved category. Further contention has been made that respondent no. 6 was not eligible to hold the post of Head Clerk as he had neither passed the Accounts examination nor possessed the requisite period of service prescribed for the post of a Head cierk.

(3.) THE learned writ Court taking into consideration the fact that respondent no. 6 being the senior most clerk in Scheduled Caste category and the aforesaid post of Head Clerk being reserved for the said category and as the appellant belonged to the general category and as he could not be promoted to the aforesaid post, unsuited him and dismissed the writ petition.