JANARDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ applications as common question of law and facts are involved, they were heard one after the other and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Both the petitioners were appointed in the Industry Department, some time in the year 1959 and they were designated as Industrial Extension Supervisor. There was another designation in the Industry Department, known as Inspectors of Industries, The Slate Government resolved to constitute 3rd Revision Committee (the Committee). Inter alia one of the terms of reference was to rationalise its cadres in different departments including the Industry Department. The Committee submitted its report and the State Government resolved to accept the same by resolution dated 30th November, 1972. It decided that the pay scales of various gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the State Government would be revised as shown in Schedule I of the resolution. The revised pay scales would apply to all the employees of the State Government who were in service on 1st of January, 1971. Inter alia, it further decided to create twenty per cent of the total sanctioned posts of Industrial Extension Supervisors and Inspectors of Industries, which were merged and known as Industrial Extension Officers. The administrative departments concerned were directed to take action in consultation of the Finance Department for increasing/abolishing the number of existing selection grade posts or creation of new selection grade posts with effect from 1.1.1971 on the basis of the Schedule 2 of the resolution. The relevant extract of resolution is annexure-1 to both the applications.

(3.) With regard to the first dispute as noticed above, the State Government after the receipt of the recommendations of the Committee, as contained in annexure 1, by Schedule 2 to annexure 1 (which is contained in annexure 2 to this application) the Government resolved to create twenty per cent of the total sanctioned posts of Industrial Extension Officers as selection grade posts. From paragraph-8 of annexure 1 it appears that although the number of selection grade posts were provided in different cadres in the State service, but in view of the recommendation of the Committee the State Government further decided that the respective administrative departments in consultations of the Finance Department would decide whether such posts should be increased or abolished. In pursuance of the resolution of the State Government, the Industry Department took up the matter and a decision was taken in that regard which is contained in annexure 6. With regard to this fact there is no dispute between the parties. From annexure 6 it appears, inter alia, that the State Government resolved to create twenty per cent of total sanctioned posts of Industrial Extension Officers as super selection grade posts. According to the petitioners, in view of this decision of the State Government, respondent No. 3 could not have issued annexure 7 by which he informed the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, that for the purpose of creating twenty per cent super selection grade posts total strength of the cadre had been taken into consideration after excluding the selection grade posts, for which in the latter total sanctioned posts of Industrial Extension Officers was taken into consideration. In other words, according to annexure 7 out of the total sanctioned posts of 270,54 posts would be of selection grade posts and 43 posts would be of super selection grade posts. According to the petitioners not only 54 posts would be selection grade posts, but 54 posts also be of super selection grade posts, by taking into consideration for both the purposes the total sanctioned strength of that cadre According to the writ petition since the decision as contained in annexure 6 with regard to the creation of posts in the selection grade and super selection grade was a decision of the State Government, the respondent No. 3 by annexure 7 could not have modified that order so far super selection grade posts were concerned. It has not been disputed that annexure 6 was the State Government. According to the petitioners annexure 7 was not the decision of the State Government but was decision of the Industry Department. This fact, asserted by the petitioner, have not been denied on behalf of the respondents by filing any counter affidavit. Further, it appears that the contention of the petitioners in this regard is founded by fact that annexure 6 was directed to be published in the Bihar Gazette, whereas there is no such direction so far annexure 7 is concerned, annexure 7, therefore was a departmental decision which could not have overriden the decision of the State Government as contained in annexure 6. I, therefore, hold that the decision as contained in annexure 6 with regard to creation of selection and super selection grade posts could not have been modified by the departmental decision as contained in annexure-7.