SITARAM CHOUDHARY Vs. THE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was deputed from the Lalit Narayan Mithila University to work as an Assistant in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, now known as the Bihar School Examination (Senior Secondary) Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The initial deputation of the petitioner was made on the basis of an advertisement by the Board contained in Annexure-29. The advertisement invited persons for appointment as an Assistant in the Intermediate Council in the pay scale of 284-372 and 348-570 alongwith usual allowances. The advertisement specified that those persons who were already employed may also be taken on deputation and would be allowed to get deputation allowance as per the rules. The petitioner on the basis of the advertisement was appointed on deputation and was working on the pay scale of 284-372 as he had three years experience on the post to which he was initially appointed.

(2.) For a short period i.e. between the periods 1.6.1985 to 19.1.1987, the Intermediate Council was dissolved. After the revival of the Intermediate Council, it took a decision to absorb the petitioner in service vide Annexure-13 dated 11.2.1987. I may refer to the contents of Annexure-13 to explain the terms under which the petitioner was absorbed back info the services of the Intermediate Cduncil. The Board has specifically used the term that the petitioner would be absorb in service and would be allowed to join in terms of the letter, I, meaning thereby that the petitioner was allowed to rejoin on the post of an Assistant, ft has further been specified that the period under which the petitioner has stood relieved from the Intermediate Council would be counted as period in service and that all emoluments were to be paid for the two years, subject to the approval of the original employer.

(3.) By Annexure-17 issued on 26.7.2004, the petitioner has been reverted back to the post of a Routine Clerk on the ground that on the date when he was appointed, which has been treated to be 19.1.1987, he did not possess the requisite qualification of having a graduate degree, according to the 1985 Rules. A show cause was issued by the impugned order to the petitioner. This order is under challenge by the writ petitioner on several grounds.