VIJAY KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.1984 (Annexure '7') issued by the Charge Officer, District Settlement Office, Purnea, Respondent No. 2 by which the Petitioners' promotion from the post of Moharir to that of Peshkar have been cancelled and they have further prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay salary in accordance with the promotion order dated 23.3.1982 (Annexure '5') in the pay scale of Rs. 580-865/-p.m.

(2.) According to the Petitioners they were appointed as Moharir on 18.9.1969 and they represented to the Settlement Officer, Purnea in 1982 for being considered to the post of Peshkar. The Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Purnea directed promotion of the Petitioners and the same were communicated by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Purnea vide Memo No. 181 dated 23.2.1982. In the Gradation List issued by the Office of Board of Revenue vide letter dated 26.11.1982 (Annexure '6') the Petitioners' name have been shown at SI. Nos. 65 and 66. A perusal of the Gradation list shows that several persons who were appointed as 'Moharir' later than the Petitioners were promoted as 'Peshkar' prior to the Petitioners e.g. Sri Naresh Pandey, Shiv Chandra Pandey, Narain Prasad whose names appear at SI. Nos. 57, 59 and 60 respectively were appointed as Moharirs on 1.12.1969, 19.5.1970 and 24.12.1971 were promoted as Peshkar on 2.3.1979.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents it has been stated that the order of promotion issued by the Charge Officer (Settlement) Purnea, Respondent No. 2 is not the competent authority and therefore the Director of Land Reforms and Survey, Bihar, Patna. Respondent No. 1 observed that the promotion order issued by the Settlement Officer, Purnea was illegal and not in accordance with law and accordingly instruction were issued to Respondent No. 2 vide Resolution dated 15.6.1976 for cancellation of promotion order of the Petitioners. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated that any opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioners before their promotion was ordered to be cancelled. It is thus, evident that the cancellation of the promotion order of the Petitioners besides being in violation of principle of natural justice are also arbitrary inasmuch as the persons who were appointed later than the Petitioners as Moharir were promoted earlier than the Petitioners and it has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioners were also considered and were found unsuitable for promotion.