LAWS(PAT)-2012-2-107

BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 16, 2012
BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD SINHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) At the relevant time petitioner served as Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government. He filed this writ petition questioning the validity of notification of the State Government dated 5.7.2005 Annexure-3 whereunder 11 Assistant Engineers have been promoted as Executive Engineer on the ground that Kishori Lal Baitha and Suresh Prasad Soor, respondent nos. 6, 7 were granted such promotion contrary to the reservation roster point fixed by the Government under letter no. 458 dated 30.9.2002 pursuant to Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution inserted under Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 and the corresponding amendment made in the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 vide Amending Bihar Act 17 of 2002.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that notification issued by the Government providing for reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes/Tribes under resolution of the Government bearing no. 213 dated 7.6.2002 was issued without undertaking any exercise to objectively collect quantifiable data showing backwardness inadequacy of representation of the members of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes in the Engineering Services of the State keeping in view the efficiency of the Engineering Services, as is required under Articles 16(4-A), 335 of the Constitution. Appreciating such aspect of the matter this Court in the case of Arun Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2011 3 PLJR 764 quashed subsequent instruction of the State Government dated 5.2.2008 issued reiterating the contents of the resolution dated 7.6.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even without going into the correctness or otherwise of the resolution dated 7.6.2002 and letter dated 5.2.2008 promotion granted to the private respondents is bad as they have been promoted against vacancy, which was meant for unreserved members of the service.