KAPILDEO PRASAD Vs. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the Resolution of the respondent-Municipal Corporation dated 20th October, 1986 (Annexure-2) being Resolution Nos. 96 and 97) whereby it was decided to promote respondent No. 4 to the post of Upper Division Tax Collector on the ground that he had the requisite educational qualification, being a graduate. The petitioners, who are senior to him, have been overlooked on the ground that they do not have the necessary educational qualification for promotion to the post of Upper Division Tax Collector. Annexure-3, a formal order granting promotion to respondent No. 4, is dated 22-11-1986. Annexure-4 is the consequential order fixing the pay of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners herein were appointed as Tax Collector. Petitioner No. 1, being the seniormost, was appointed on 17-10-1947 while petitioner No. 5, the juniormost amongst them, was appointed as Tax Collector on 17-8-1959. Resondent No. 4, who happened to be a graduate, was also appointed as Tax Collector on 16-6-1962. Having regard to his length of service, it is not disputed that as Tax Collector he was junior to the petitioners;

(3.) From Annexure-1 it appears that the respondent-Municipal Corporation took a decision to fill up the post of Upper Division Tax Collector by promotion. Pursuant to the said decision the Resolution (annexure-2) was passed, which was followed by the impugned order of promotion 9 (Annexure-3).