MANENDRA PRASAD Vs. RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-'7' order dated 13-7-1978 passed by Ranchi Regional Development Authority, respondent No. 1, by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Accountant to that of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 12-6-1978.

(2.) Applications were invited by respondent No. 1 for the post of Senior Accounts Clerk in the Upper Division Scale. The required qualifications for the candidates were that they should be at least intermediate in Commerce, Science or Arts with Mathematics and possess at least 5 years' experience in the Accounts work in a local body or Public Works Department (the P. W. D.). The petitioner in pursuance of that advertisement applied for the post and by Annexure-'l' dated 10-6-1970 he was appointed temporarily to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk. By office order dated 19-5-1976, Annexure-'3' the petitioner was confirmed. By office order dated 7-4-1976, Annexure-'2' respondent No. 3, who was senior most Upper Division Assistant in the office of respondent No. 1 was appointed as Accountant in the office of respondent No. 1 in anticipation of the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission (the B. P. S. C.). By order dated 17-8-1976, Annexure-'4' respondent No. 1 promoted the petitioner on purely temporary basis for one year to the post of Accountant. It was provided that if the petitioner would not pass the Local Bodies Accounts Examination then he would be reverted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner was posted to work as Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer of respondent No. 1. As the petitioner did not pass the Local Bodies Accounts Examination, he was reverted to the post of the Upper Division Clerk. The grievance of the petitioner is that although applications were invited for the post of Senior Accounts Clerk and the petitioner was appointed as such in pursuance of that advertisement by Annexure-'1' and was subsequently confirmed as Senior Accounts Clerk but he was not reverted to his substantive post i.e., Senior Accounts Clerk. His further grievance is that although respondent No. 3 did not pass the Local Bodies Accounts Examination before his promotion as an Accountant as no condition was imposed in his case that he would be reverted to his substantive post if he would not pass the Local Bodies Accounts Examination, no condition could have been imposed by respondent No. 1 making it compulsory for the petitioner to pass the Local Bodies Accounts Examination as that amounted to change of the conditions of the service which was without jurisdiction and also imposition of such condition in case of the petitioner amounted to discrimination inasmuch as no such condition was imposed in the case of respondent No. 3.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Accounts Clerk and that he was confirmed in that post. It has been stated that a person can be substantively appointed as accountant only after he passes Local Bodies Accounts Examination and as the petitioner could not pass it he was reverted from the post of accountant. Their further case is that respondent No. 3 is the senior most clerk in office of the Authority and who is also a member of the Scheduled Tribe was promoted as Accountant. He was exempted from passing the accounts examination in terms of Government letter dated 1-6-1978, Annexure-'B' to the counter affidavit. It was asserted that the reversion of the petitioner was legal and valid.