SARVESH CHANDRA PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 6 was appointed in Rashtra Bhasha Parishad vide letter dated 13-11-1975. He joined on 1-12-1975. He was given selection grade vide order dated 1-2-1986 and senior selection grade scale vide order dated 1-2-1989. The appellants came in service of Rashtra Bhasha Parishad later than respondent No. 6. A seniority list was prepared in the cadre of Subordiate Educational Service (upper division) in the Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad. In the seniority list respondent No. 6 was placed at serial No. 1 and the appellants were placed at Serial Nos. 2 to 4. The appellants were promoted vide notification dated 10-3-1995 to the Bihar Educational Service class II. Respondent No. 6 aggrieved by the said notification dated 10-3-1995 filed CWJC No. 2862/95 making prayer therein to quash the said notification on the ground that his case was not considered for promotion though he was at serial No. 1 in the gradation list in the cadre of Subordinate Educational Service. The promotions to the Bihar Educational Service Class II are made on the basis of Seniority in the Subordinate Educational Service according to the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Inspite of the Rules his case was not considered and the appellants were allowed promotion to Bihar Educational Service Class II.

(2.) The appellants, pursuant to the notice, appeared, in the case and filed counter-affidavit. Their stand was that for promotion on the post of Research Officer in Class II Bihar Educational Service the requisite qualification was M.A. in Hindi or Sanskrit. No one can be promoted to the post as indicated above unless he possesses requisite qualification. The appellants possessed requisite qualification and as such they were promoted to the post of Research Officer. Respondent No. 6 was not possessing requisite qualification and as such he was not allowed promotion on the post of Research Officer.

(3.) The writ petition was allowed on 9-2-1996 and the order impugned was quashed. Respondents were directed to consider the case of respondent No. 6 and other eligible candidates including the appellants for vacant post of Research Officer in accordance with law and fill up the vacancy as expeditiously as possible. The said order has been challenged by the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal.