SAHEB DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE persons in order of seniority from the post of Seasonal Water Rent Collector had to be picked up and appointed as Permanent Water Rent Collector. Petitioner was, accordingly, one of the five persons appointed and now after nine years, his appointment has been cancelled which has brought the petitioner to this Court. State has appeared and filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder has been filed. With consent of parties, this matter has been heard for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) IT appears that earlier several persons were recruited on seasonal basis for doing the work of collection of water rent. Government took a decision to make permanent appointments. The decision was that all the seasonal workers would be clubbed together and their seniority determined. The five senior persons would, accordingly, be appointed in the five posts available for the said purpose. Pursuant thereto, a Selection Committee was set up and selection made. Five persons were selected and in order of seniority, petitioner was fourth. Respondent No. 6 Ram Nath Singh was not in the list. He protested to the authorities. Unfortunately, even though his protest was belated, having been made nine years after appointments were made, if was entertained by the authorities. Matter was examined. It was found that he was the seniormost Seasonal Water Rent Collector. He was wrongly excluded. Authorities then refixed the seniority. Accordingly, the person who was fifth in the original seniority list, petitioner being fourth, would now be required to move out and. accordingly, his appointment was required to be cancelled. In normal course of events, there was no fault on part of the petitioner. Even under the revised group, petitioner would be the fifth person and, thus, his appointment was not liable to be interfered with. But, as strange events took place, it was petitioner who was dismissed to make way for respondent No. 6. A strange plea has been raised in the counter affidavit by the State. It is stated that as there were only five posts, only five appointments could have been made now under the revised list, the last person (not the petitioner) had to be dismissed. But, the said person had since superannuated and was unavailable for dismissal, therefore, the axe must fall on the petitioner though petitioner is not to be blamed. This is what brought the petitioner to this Court.

(3.) IN my view whatever may be the position, the petitioner, as indicated above. could not be and ought not to be dismissed, for he had committed no wrong. The wrong, if any, was committed by the authorities and the person wrongfully included was the person who was allowed to superannuate without any action taken. In such circumstances, I hold that the order dismissing the petitioner without there being any fault on part of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and capricious and cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. The said order purports to be an order in pursuant to CWJC No. 7910 of 2003. In my view, the said judgment does not say or direct that even if petitioner was not at fault and if the appointment of the petitioner was not wrong, he should be dismissed to make way for any person. Annexure -1 being order dated 28.4.2006 of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, as communicated by Memo No. 316 dated 29.4.2006. is quashed. The writ application is allowed. The petitioner would, thus, be deemed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.