KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These applications were heard on 9th December 1985 and again on 10th December, 1985. Mr. Advocate General who' intervened in the case on that date, made certain submissions but those could not be substantiated for want of facts. He, therefore, asked for some time to enable him to file a counter affidavit. 1 acceded to the request and adjourned the case for 3rd of January, 1986. The case was thereafter heard on 6th January, 1986 when arguments were concluded. I started dictating judgment in Court on 8.1.1985 and when I was in the midst of dictating judgment Mr. Advocate General came and again made submissions. 1 then on hit request directed the case to be heard further on 23rd January, 1986. On 22nd January an application on behalf of four persons was filed praying to add them as petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 686 of 1984. Another application on behalf of 21 persons was filed on 24.1.1985 in C.W.J.C.No. 3408 of 1984. The prayer in this application was also to add these applicants as petitioners to the writ application and grant them reliefs claimed therein. At the request of learned counsel for the parties two writ applications adjourned on 23rd January, 1986, 29th January, 198(sic) and again on 5th February, 1986. Today I heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The prayer in the two writ applications is to direct the respondents to publish a merit list of the successful candidates appeared in the Graduate Standard Non -gazetted Examination held by respondent no. 2 -Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board. Further their prayer is that the successful candidates should be allotted departments taking in to consideration their choice and preference on the basis of the merit list prepared by the Board. Some facts necessary for the decision of the points raised in these two applications have to be borne in mind. They are as follows : - -

(3.) The petitioners along with others appeared in the written test that was held on 1st of March, 1982 and the results were announced on 11th of March, 1983. It further appears that in the meantime some vacancies occurred for the post of Supply Inspectors and those were sent to the Subordinate Service Selection Board vide letter no. 44621 dated 7.5.1983. In terms of the second advertisement these posts were also to be filled up on the basis of the result of the examination that was held on 11th of March, 1983. The grievance of the petitioners is that without any guideline respondent no. 2 in an arbitrary manner allotted departments to the successful candidate. It is said that all the petitioners excepting petitioner no. 2 of C.W.J.C.No. 586 of 1984 were assigned to Labour Department where they have been appointed as Labour Inspectors. Petitioner no. 2 of C.W.J.C.No. 686 of 1984 Was allotted the Department of Grampanchayat where he has been appointed as Grampanchayat Supervisor. The grievances of these petitioners is that the persons who had obtained less marks than them were given Supply Department where they have been appointed as Supply Inspectors. The petitioner say that since there was no guideline nor any norms were fixed for allotment of the department, the authorities acted arbitrarily. It is said that the petitioners having obtained higher marks should have been allotted the Supply Department where they could be appointed as Supply Inspectors C.W.J.C. No. 686 of 1984 was filed on 8th of February, 1984. The matter came for admission on 14th of February, 1984 and again on 2nd March, 1984 and on both these occasions the case was adjourned to enable the State counsel to get instruction. As the order -sheet of 23rd of March, 1984 shows the State counsel failed to receive instruction and the application was admitted and it was directed that if any appointment is made then that will be subject to the decision of the writ application. Undisputedly some appointments of Supply Inspectors have been made after this order. These appointments will naturally be therefore subject to the result of those two applications. A perusal of the counter affidavits shows that while allotting departments to successful candidates respondent no. 2 had no fixed norms neither they had asked the candidates to give their choice. Only relevant thing that has been said is that all the posts carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, he is said as to whether a particular person is allotted to their department or that department should be of no consideration. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on 5th February, 1985 it baa been said as follows :