DAYANAND BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner came to this court originally making the grievance that though he was fully eligible, the concerned authorities has not included his came in the list of the candidates sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission ('the Commission', hereinafter) for consideration for appointment to the posts of Director, Agriculture and Addl. Director, Agriculture. Having thus represented his case, he obtained an order from this court on 28.4.1997 which though permitting the respondent authorities to proceed with the selection process restrained them from making any appointments till further order by the court. Shortly thereafter the State Government and some of the private respondents appeared in this case and filed Interlocutory Application making a prayer for vacating the order of stay. In those Interlocutory Applications it was clearly shown that the State Government had forwarded to the Commission a list of 20 persons who were to be taken into consideration for appointment to the posts of Director/Addl. Director, Agriculture. The name of the petitioner was at serial no. 11 in this list. It was, therefore, quite incorrect to say that the name of the petitioner had not been forwarded to the Commission for consideration. It also came to light that the process of appointment to the two posts had been undertaken pursuant to earlier orders by this court directing the concerned authorities to fill up the posts of Director and Addl. Director, Agriculture by making regular appointments within a specified time frame. Accordingly, this court by order dated 21.5.1997 recalled the interim direction given on 28.4.1997 and left it open to the respondent authorities to make the appointments in accordance with the earlier directions of this court. This court also suitably punished the petitioner by imposing on him a cost of Rs.3000/ - payable to the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice. However, on a prayer made on his behalf, if was left open to the petitioner to file any amendment petitions in this case. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.5.1997 is as follows : "In view of the facts coming to light from I.A. Application, Mr. Mahto makes a prayer for filing an amendment petition in this case. It will be open to the petitioner to file an amendment petition which if and when filed will be considered on its own merits."

(2.) FOLLOWING the aforesaid order two amendment petitions were filed by the petitioner; in the first amendment petition which was registered as I.A. No. 2845/1997, the petitioner challenged the recommendations made by the Commission on the plea that though his name was forwarded, it was not considered by the Commissioner while making recommendations for appointment to the posts. He further challenged the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 on the posts of Addl. Director (Agriculture) on the basis of the Commissions recommendations and sought quashing of notification no. 2279, dated 21.5.1997 by which the appointments in question were made.

(3.) CONSEQUENT upon the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 to the posts of Addl. Director (Agriculture), further notifications were' issued concerning their postings. This led to the petitioner's removal from the post of Director (Agriculture) (which till then he occupied as In -charge) and to his posting as Director, Seed Testing Agency, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner filed the second amendment petition being I.A. No. 3070/97 challenging the posting notifications and his removal as In -charge Director, Agriculture.