UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.9.97 passed in CWJC no. 4930/96 and other analogous matters whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if the Government decides to fill up the post of Plumber by direct recruitment then the case of the petitioner (lTl trained candidates) should be considered alongwith other eligible candidates.

(2.) THE appellants assail the aforesaid direction on the ground that while passing the aforesaid direction, the learned Single Judge of this court has not taken into account the policy decision of the State Government dated 1.9.79 (Annexure 14) which inter alia provides for filling up 50% of the vacancy of Plumber from amongst the category of ITI trained. In this connection, the appellants have placed reliance over statement showing the present position of plumbers working in the Patna circle as contained in Annexure 1 to the instant memo of appeal. The specific case of the Respondent is that the appointment shown to have been made during the period between 1981 -84 as it appears from Annexure 1 to the memo of appeal has been made pursuant to the direction of the High Court in writ or contempt application which direction the authority had no option but to follow. Perusal of the aforesaid Annexure 1 indicates that appointments were made on the post of plumber in different years between 1981 to 1994 on the direction of the High Court passed in different writ/contempt petitions. The State -Respondents in this connection has further submitted that appointment/direct recruitment on the post of plumber has not been made since 1979. Even the promotions made on that post in the year 1992 against the reserved vacancy has also been cancelled. The appointment made pursuant to the direction of the court in writ/contempt petition cannot be a ground for the appellants to seek direction from this court that other vacancies of plumber from the category of ITI trained should also be filled up. The writ court, while considering the prayer made in the writ court, while considering the prayer made in the writ petition considered this aspect of the matter and having found as a fact that no appointment has been made on the post of plumber as a ban is imposed against such appointment has disposed of the writ petition with direction that as and when the Government decides to fill up the post of plumber, it should consider the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is found with the order of the learned Singlle Judge which is upheld.

(3.) I agree.