DHRUB PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are Assistant Engineers in the Road Construction Department having been appointed in the year 1985, have moved this Court for a direction to the respondent-Secretary, Road Construction Department that in view of the fact that their names have been cleared by the Vigilance Department, their names should also be sent to Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration while considering the other names for empanelment for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

(2.) THE contention on behalf of the petitioners is that in another Writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No 1817/2002, which was filed by one Mithlesh Kumar & others, who were appointees of the year 1991 a counter affidavit had been preferred by the State in which it was accepted that there were 128 Vacancies as on 13.10.2001. In view of the same a letter from the department has been sent to Vigilance Commissioner along with the name of 128 persons for vigilance clearance to enable them for consideration for empanelment for promotion as Executive Engineer. By filing another counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition the respondent took stand that the Vigilance report had already been received and the matter was pending before the Departmental Promotion Committee and as such two weeks' time was prayed, for taking a final decision.

(3.) WITH regard to the arguments of the petitioners that in view of the resolution of the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, as contained in Annexure 1, names three times number of vacancies occurring in the year is to be sent for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee. It has been contended by the earned Counsel for the State that the said resolution is required to be followed as far as practicable. In the present case, admittedly, names three times the number of vacancies available and likely to occur in future have been sent for vigilance clearance and after obtaining the same, as the vacancies which are there and likely to occur for the post of Executive Engineer are about 42 1/2 only, as such 109 names out of those 128 were sent to Departmental promotion Committee. As 80 persons have been empanelled for promotion as Executive Engineer, many names who were above the petitioners have been left out before Departmental Promotion Committee itself and they did not require consideration for empanelment. Had the consideration of all the names sent to Departmental Promotion Committee, exhausted and still vacancies remained then the present petitioners could have taken benefit of the present situation which is not only mandatory in nature. In any view of the matter even persons who have been empanelled they have again to face vigilance clearance for their promotion when the vacancy is available. Though they were promoted and their empanelment is there, but an undertaking has been given in the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1817/2002 that any right to those persons would accrue only when actual vacancy arose on the post of Executive Engineer and they were promoted on those posts and that too after vigilance clearance.