UMESHKUMARSINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to have been duly appointed as the Managing Director of the Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Corporation) has assailed annexures 13 and 14 to the writ petition. Annexure 13 is a memo whereby the services of Ram Prakash Mahto, IAS, respondent No. S have been placed at the disposal of the Department of Industries for his appointment and posting as the Managing Director of the respondent corporation. Annexure 14 is the notification whereby, under Articles 92(a) and 129 of the Articles of Association of tbe respondent Corporation, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Managing Director of the Corporation and has been posted as Officer on Special Duty in the head quarters of the Department of Industries. By the same notification respondent No. 5 an I. A. S. Officer has been appointed and posted as the Managing Directer of the respondent Corporation till further orders. The petitioner contends that he being an employee of the respondent Corporation cannot be transferred outside the Corporation to any post under the Government of Bihar without his consent. He, therefore submits that the first part of the notification transferring him as Officer on Special Duty in the Department of Industries is illegal. He also contends that since there is only one post of Managing Director, in the respondent Corporation, and he has been duly appointed to the said post, respondent No 5 cannot be appointed as Managing Director of the respondent Corporation ignoring the right of the petitioner to hold that post. In view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, challenge to the first part of the notification annexure 14 need not be considered because in the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that the order transferring the petitioner as the Officer on Special Duty in the Department of Industries is being recalled. Consequently the petitioner continues as a Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The counter affidavit however makes it clear that respondent No. 5 shall also function as the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner challenges this arrangement of having two Managing Directors in the respondent Corporation on the ground that the same is not permissible in law. His case is that there being only one sanctioned post of Managing Director, two Managing Directors cannot be appointed against a single post. The petitioner has also impugned annexures 13 and 14 on the ground that the same have been issued with mala fide motive, solely calculated to defeat the right of the petitioner, who has displeaded the Chairman of the Corporation, and the powers that be in the State of Bihar.

(2.) The background of the case reveals that this is not the first writ petition filed by the petitioner, and that for quite some time the petitioner has been in and out of Court In fact he relies upon some of the findings recorded by this Court in an earlier proceeding to support his stand in the instant writ petition. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the background in which the present dispute arises.

(3.) The petitioner, a qualified Chemical Engineer, applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar, for appointment to the post of Managing Director of the respondent Corparation. An interview was conducted by the Bureau of Public Enterprises and thereafter the petitioner was selected for appointment as Managing Director of the respondent Corporation This was communicated to him by the Special Secretary, in the Department of Industries, Government of Bihar by letter dated 8th September 1984 (Annexure 2). The letter discloses that in accordance with Articles 92 and 129 of the Article of Association of the respondent Corporation, by order of the Governor the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said communication which were to the effect tha,t the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-Rs 3,500, with a starting salary of Rs 3300/- and was appointed on probation for a period of two years. After expiry of the period of two years, if his services were found to be satisfactory he was to be confirmed on the post of Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner thereafter joined as the Managing Director of the Corporation and completed his period of probation on 11.10.1986. By resolution dated 11th March, 1987, the Board of Directors of the respondent corporation resolved to permanently absorb the petitioner on the post of Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. No formal order confirming the petitioner as such has been brought to notice and perhaps, such an order was never issued.