SHIVA KUMAR PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the appointments of two Munsifs. namely, Pal Leonard Kongardi and Budhdeo Narain Singh, have been challenged and a prayer has been made for canceling their appointments and directing the State of Bihar to fill in the vacancies in accordance with law.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state some facts which are not in dispute. In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 4 of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Ruler, the Bihar Public Service Commission, hearin -after referred to as the Commission, leaned a notice inviting applications for sitting at the competitive examination to be held some time in December 1960 -January 1981. According to the notice fifty permanent vacancies in the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) were to be filled is out of which six posts were reserved for scheduled caste candidates and five for scheduled tribe candidates, if suitable candidate were available in those categories. The petitioner along with other candidates appeared at the examination which was held by the Commission in pursuance of the aforesaid notice. In March 1961 the Commission announced the result of the written examination and the candidates including the petitioner and opposite parties 2 and 3, who had passed out the written examination, were required to appear before the Commission for prasnality test. The Commission initially recommended 54 candidates in order of merit for appointment as Munsifs against 50 vacancies. Out of the recommended candidates, 49 were the general candidates and 5 were from the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. Amongst the general candidates, Budhdeo Narain Singh (opposite party 3) was given place 38 and the petitioner was given place 49. Amonget the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. Pal Leonard Kongardi (opposite party 2) was given the first place. It appears that after some Correspondence with, the Government, the Commission recommended one mure candidate, namely, George Bhupendra Soreng, belonging to the scheduled tribe. Subsequently the petitioner as well as other candidates appeared before the medical board. The medical board found the petitioner fit for appointment but found opposite party 2 unfit for service on the ground of his total blindness of the left eye. In the first instance, the State Government appointed 42 candidate from the general list and 4 from the scheduled casts and scheduled tribe list and those appointments were duly notified. Neither the petitioner nor opposite parties 2 and 3 were included in the aforesaid appointment made by the Government. George Bhupendra Soreng was subsequently appointed in one of the posts reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates. Sri Indrajit Mishra was appointed in one of the posts open to the general candidates after considerations of the police report against him by the Government. as two of the candidates, namely, J. M Srivastava and S. K. Jha. who had been recommended by the Commission, did not appear before the medical board and two of the Munsifs, who had been initially appointed by the Government, subsequently resigned, the Government filed in the four posts by appointing Haricharan Mittal Shambhunath Sinha, Badhdeo Narain Singh (opposite party 3) and Pal Leonard Kongardi (opposite party 2) Thus all the 50 posts, out of which 44 went to the general candidates and 6 went to scheduled casts and scheduled tribe candidates, were filed in by the Government. I may state here that by the notification dated 23 May 1962 published in the Bihar Gazette on 13 June 1962. opposite parties 2 and 3 were appointed at Munsifs.

(3.) In the application it has been alleged that the petitioner was more suitable and eligible for the appointment of Munslf than Budhdeo Narain Singh (opposite party 3) and Pal Leonard Kongardi (opposite party 2). As I have already stated, the Commission gave place 48 to Budhdeo Narain Singh opposite party 3) and place 49 to the petitioner amongst the general candidates in order of preference. In the application the appointment of Badhdeo Narain Sings has been challenged on the ground that on the date of his appointment as a Munsif, he was already working as a Sub -Deputy Collector. In view of the fact stated in Paras. 17 and 18 of the counter -affidevit filed on bahalf of the State of Bihar, Sri Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, conceded at the time of argument that it is not possible to question the validity of the appointment of Badhdeo Narain Singh as a Munsif. Learned councel confined his argument soley on the question of the validity of the appointment of Pal Leonard Kongardi.