STATE OF BIHAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The short question which has come up for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent in the Patna High Court Rules, is as to whether the interpretation reached by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2005, passed in CWJC No. 1556 of 2000, with regard to the age limit prescribed for appointment by promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Excise in Rule 1 of the Recruitment of Sub Inspector of Excise Rules, 1954 (In short "1954 Rules"), which were brought into force in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supersession of all previous rules, on the subject, of the Government of Bihar relating to recruitment of Sub Inspector of Excise by direct appointment, as well as, by promotion, is justified or not?

(2.) A few material and relevant facts giving rise to this appeal may be articulated at this juncture with a view to appreciating the merit of the appeal and challenge against it. (i) The respondent-original writ petitioner Anil Kumar joined the post of Excise Clerk in the Excise & Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, on 8.4.1991; (ii) His date of birth, as per the record, is 9.8.1963; (iii) The original writ petitioner completed the age of 35 years on 9.8.1998; (iv) The original writ petitioner initiated legal battle by filing CWJC No. 1556 of 2000 on 9.2.2000 seeking direction against the appellant State to promote him to the post of Sub Inspector of Excise from the post of Excise Clerk with all consequential benefits with effect from 12.12.1998.

(3.) WE have been addressed by the learned Advocate General for the appellant State and by learned Counsel Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing for the respondent original writ petitioner. WE have also, dispassionately, examined the record and the relevant rule provision, as well as, text and texture of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge under challenge.