SHASHI KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and have perused the records of the cases as well as records of C.W.J.C. No. 5390 of 2007 disposed of on 16.3.2012. The petitioners seek direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters in their favour in view of the recommendation of the District Appointment Committee made vide memo no. 12M, as contained in Annexure 2, as per the decision taken by the District Level Appointment Committee in the meeting held on 10.2.2012 under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate. Sitamarhi recommending petitioners' names requesting the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur (respondent no. 4) to issue appointment letters in their favour.

(2.) Petitioners submit that one of the persons whose name has been recommended, namely, Sharma Nand Prasad, has already been issued appointment letter and has already joined and is working under Bagmati Division No. 1, Sitamarhi, however, the petitioners' are not being issued appointment letters which is a clear cut case of discrimination.

(3.) A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed taking identical stand. Thereafter, second supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar at Muzaffarpur, respondent no. 4, viz. Sh. Gunja Lal Ram. A stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the real facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while the case of aforesaid Sharma Nand Prasad was being considered in C.W.J.C. No. 5390 of 2007 which had resulted in passing of the order in his favour and eventually he had to be appointed. It has also been urged by the Executive Engineer, who had filed affidavit before the Single Bench, which was considering the case of Sharma Nand Prasad, stating that the appointment of Sharma Nand Prasad was under active consideration was not having any authority to file such affidavit. It is also submitted that answering respondent, Mr. Gunja Lal Ram, the Chief Engineer concerned has sent letter as well as reminder to the concerned for filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5390 of 2007, however, nothing has been intimated by the concerned Department till date. It is also stated that he has met the Under Secretary and Principal Secretary of the Department and had asked to give guideline in the light of the several letters written by him for moving further by filing Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that he is making a complain in paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit that the Under Secretary and the Principal Secretary of the concerned department are not listening to him and paying any heed to his letters. The second supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the said Gunja Lal Ram, respondent no. 4, the Chief Engineer making a statement that the appointment of the aforesaid Sharma Nand Prasad was made under the direction of this Court after approval of the competent authority. A stand has been taken that proper number of working days was not calculated by earlier Executive Engineer who has given undertaking that the matter of appointment was under active consideration and, thus, he has sought explanation from the said Executive Engineer as to why the departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Later on, according to him, it has also been found that the list sent by the Executive Engineer was based on fictitious calculation of working days. However, from the counter affidavit and second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 it appears that it has not been controverted that the petitioners are also on identical footing to the aforesaid Sharma Nand Prasad who has already been appointed, whereas, the petitioners are yet to be given appointment letters.