VIJAYKUMAR Vs. HE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first case the petitioners, who are Class IV employees of the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), have prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 7 and 8 made vide D.O. No. 590 and 591 dated 30th March, 1991, photo copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures 2 and 3 respectively and, further, for a direction to the respondents to fill up the vacancies in Class III by promotion after considering their cases who claim to he duly qualified and eligible. In the second case the two petitioners, namely, Vijay Kumar and Gopal Singh, who have been working in the Authority since 1980 and 1981 continuously without any break, have sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise them on the posts in Class III over which they are working and not by promotion from amongst Class IV employees of the Authority. Thus, as directed at the time of admission, both the writ applications have been heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order.

(2.) According to the petitioner of the first case, the Establishment Committee of the Authority in its meeting held on 22-2-1988 considered their cases and recommended them for promotion to Class III posts. The matter was also referred to the Government (Bureau of Public Enterprises) for its approval. It is stated that the cases of respondents No. 5 to 7 and 8, who were casual employees working against Class III posts, were also considered in the aforesaid meeting of the Establishment Committee for promotion against Class III vacancies. It is alleged that the Establishment Committee recommanded that the services of the said respondents should first be regularised against Class IV posts and then their cases be considered for promotion to Class III posts. While the matter was still pending in the Government, the then Managing Director of the Authority, Mrs. Padda, proceeded on long leave after handing, over charge of the post on 30th March, 1991. It is alleged that Mrs. Padda on the last day, i. e , 30th March, 1991, before she proceeded on long leave, passed orders appointing respondents No 5 to 8 ia Class III on regular basis So far as respondent No. 8 is concerned further it is alleged that respondent No. 8, who was initially a regular Class IV employee, was given promotion to Class III post by the then Managing Director, Mrs Padda, igaoring the claim of his seniors. A photo copy of the aforementioned recommendation of the Establishment Committee dated 22-2-1988 regarding consideration of the cases of respondents No. 5 to 7 and 8 for appointment/promotion in Class III has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the first case.

(3.) Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Authority as well as respondents No. 5 to 7 and 8 the replies thereto have also been filed on behalf of the petitioners in the first case.