BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before coming to the merits of the matter raised by the petitioners in the present writ application, the Court would like to refer to the affidavit of the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, which has been filed pursuant to the direction plus adjournment granted on the request made by the Principal Secretary on 8.2.2016. The Principal Secretary has very categorically stated in his affidavit that the State Government is not in a position to withdraw the order dated 12/8/2014, issued by the Department putting a ban on consideration for promotion across the board in the State of Bihar till the final outcome of an SLP which has been moved by the State of Bihar, in the case of Sushil Kumar Singh originating out of CWJC No. 19114 of 2012.

(2.) To set the records straight, the State of Bihar issued Resolution No. 11635 dated 28.01.2012, giving benefit to SC/ST candidates even in promotion and seniority, which was challenged by certain government servants, led by Sushil Kumar Singh and others. Since the learned Single Judge passed an order of stay against the resolution, the order dated 12/8/2014, which is Annexure -2 to the writ application, was issued by the General Administration Department putting on hold all consideration for promotion. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties including the State quashed the resolution holding it to be unconstitutional. The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well an SLP thereafter came to be filed against the decision of the Division Bench, witch affirmed the learned Single Judge's order but nothing tangible has emerged.

(3.) Naturally with a blanket ban imposed by the General Administration Department on all and sundry, even in the cases where the Departmental Promotion Committee had made recommendation for grant of promotion to government servants, it was not being implemented or acted upon. Obviously, a substantive right granted in favour of a government servant was put on hold, if not frustrated. Many of these persons so recommended were either on the verge of superannuation or have even superannuated. It was in this background that a series of writ applications stated being filed looking for a direction or a mandamus upon the respondents to act upon the recommendation of the DPC, if not consider their right for promotion as such.