KAUSHALKISHORESINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this court with the grievance that he has been unjustly and arbitrarily superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Sheristedar by Respondent No. 4 and, thereafter, in the matter of supertime scale as well as promotion to the post of Sheristedar by Respondent No. 5.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the petitioner's case and to decide the controversy, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in brief. The petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the Munger Judgeship as Clerk on and from 22.9.1958 while Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed to the said post in the Munger Judgeship on and from 13.2.1958 and 1.11.1965, respectively. The petitioner was confirmed to the post of Clerk in the year 1969, but Respondent No. 4 although appointed earlier to the petitioner to the post of clerk, not having passed the departmental examination, was confirmed with effect from 13.3.1972. After bifurcation of the Judgeship of Munger, Begusarai Judgeship was created and the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 opted for Begusarai Judgeship. A gradation list of Class III employees at Begusarai Judgeship was prepared, in which the petitioner was assigned seniority above Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 submitted representation, which was rejected by the District Judge by order dated 4.7.1978. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 made an appeal by way of representation before the High Court, on the administrative side, but the said respresentation was also rejected by order dated 4.3.1989. Both petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were promoted to the posts of Upper Division Clerk on 1.4.1974 and, thereafter, in the Junior Selection Grade posts in the cadre of Clerks. On 30.6.1990, the petitioner was communicated adverse comment in respect of his A.C.R., against which he made representation before the High Court, on the administrative side, praying for expunction thereof. The said representation of the petitioner has not yet been disposed of. Following the death of Kadir Hussaini, District Judge's Sheristedar, Respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Sheristedar superseding the petitioner's claim, although the petitioner was senior to him as per gradation list. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 20.2.1991 against the order of supersession before the High Court, on the administrative side. In the meantime, by order No. 106(M) dated 1.10.1992 (a copy whereof is annexed and marked as Annexure 7 to the writ petition), Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Supertime Selection Grade superseding 5 persons, including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been unjustly and arbitrarily superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Sheristedar by Respondent No. 4 and in the matter of supertime selection grade by Respondent No. 5.

(3.) Respondents have filed separate counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna, it is contended that the appeal of Respondent No. 4 against the fixation of his seniority below the petitioner was rejected by the High Court on the adminsitrative side by order dated 4.3.1989. It is also contended that a representation, made by the petitioner before the High Court on the administrative side against the order dated 8.2.1991 of the District Judge, Begusarai, appointing Respondent No. 4 to the post of Sheristedar, was disposed of and the order was communicated on 24.2.1994 as follows :