NANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner belongs to cadre of Deputy Collector and at present posted as District Panchayat Raj Officer, at Ranchi. He has moved this Court with two fold grievances. His first grievance is that he has not been given time bound promotion within the due time. His second grievance is that the date of his confirmation is wrong. He has, therefore, prayed for quashing the notification dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure 11) by which he has been confirmed w.e.f. 13 2 1991 and notification dated 14 5 1992 (Annexure 12) by which he has been given time bound promotion to the Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1 1 1992.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the case of the petitioner it would be necessary to state the relevant facts in brief which are as follows:

(3.) AS noted earlier, the petitioner vide notification dated 21.3.1987 became the Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1976. His case is that he had satisfactorily prepared the case records and had completed the Treasury training as per the rules. The case records were submitted on 26.12.1981 and after scrutiny found satisfactory, as is evident from the letter of the Deputy Secretary Law (Judicial) Department, Govt. of Bihar dated 21.7.1983 (Annexure 3). By letter dated 8.3.1989, the Board of Revenue, Bihar communicated that the Revenue case records submitted by the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory and accepted. However, the date of submission of case records was shown as 13.1.1989. The first objection of the petitioner is here. According to the petitioner case record has been submitted to the competent authority on 26.12.1981. The petitioner passed the first half yearly departmental examination in 1985 as appears from Annexure 7. The petitioner had passed the examination in the lower standard. The petitioner invited the attention of Central Examination Committee to the resolution of the Appointment Committee contained in Memo No. 21176 dated 7.12.1971 (Annexure 9) and claimed that in terms of said Resolution an Officer who is a Scheduled Caste should be deemed to have been passed departmental examination in the higher standard even he has actually passed in the lower standard. According to this resolution the departmental examination is not treated to be examination for the purpose of promotion. But at the time of confirmation/promotion it would be a relevant factor for consideration as to whether officer has or has not completed his departmental responsibilities. But for the purposes of confirmation of a Sub Deputy Collector it is essential to pass departmental examination by lower standard and for promotion to pass examination at higher standard. It was further decided that, in respect of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe the pass mark would be reduced by 10 per cent. The second Para of Annexure 9 which relates to promotion of Sub Deputy Collectors is no longer relevant after merger of the two cadres. 'The petitioner has pressed his case for promotion on the basis of Annexure 9. He contends that he having passed departmental examination by lower standard, by virtue of Annexure 9, he would be deemed to have passed the examination by higher standard also. The petitioner has further stated that under letter No. 2013 dated 13 2 1991 (Annexure 10) the petitioner has been granted exemption from the liabilities of passing Law Part II and submission of the case records. It is apparent from Annexure 10/1 of the writ application that the petitioner having been exempted from the liability of passing Law Part II examination and submission of case records he became eligible for increment, efficiency bar, confirmation and promotion etc. Thus Para 3 of this annexure has created confusion. Para 3 says that the benefits mentioned above will be granted from the date of issuance of the letter i.e. from 13 2 1991.