ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the validity of the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33, further prayer has been made by the petitioners to direct the respondents to consider their case for appointment.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in short, is that all were eligible for appointment in view of the decision of the State Government contained in letter No. 16440 dated 3.12.1980. By this letter the State Government decided to fill up Class III posts by advertisement on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at their School/College level and they were not required to appear at any test or oral examination (Annexure 1). The aforesaid condition of the State Government was reiterated by the guidelines as contained in letter No. 2401 dated 29.11.1983 to the effect that all the Class III posts should be filled up only on the basis of merit list prepared and on the basis of marks obtained at the School/College level. It further laid down further procedure of allotment of bonus point for different qualifications as age group. However, Board of Revenue by its Memo dated 20.1.1984 decided that for all the Clerks/Assistants in the State Government service the knowledge of typing is must and typing should be considered to be additional qualification (Annexure 3). An advertisement was published on or about 29.8.1987 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant -cum -Typist at Palamau Collectorate. The applicants were required to submit their applications through Employment Exchange and last date for submitting application was 10.9.1987. When the said advertisement was published only 25 posts were to be filled up and minimum eligibility was that the candidate must possess a certificate from a recognised institution of typing. This advertisement is contained in Annexure 4. Subsequently a corrigendum was issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau on or about 7.3.1989 modifying the earlier advertisement to the extent that the candidates who had not applied against the said advertisement can submit their applications by 15.3.1989. This corrigendum also indicates that typing is an additional qualification (Annexure 5). Further case of the petitioners is that they made applications in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and corrigendum and petitioner no. 6 being a commerce graduate, applied as a member of scheduled caste. The Sub -Committee constituted by the Establishment Committee scrutinized the applications and decided to prepare the panel in view of the decision of the Government dated

(3.) 12.1980. Names of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were shown at serial nos. 1 to 3, petitioner no. 4 at serial no. 4 and petitioner no. 5 at serial no. 8 in the said panel. Marks were allotted accordingly. The names of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 were mentioned in Schedule 2 of general candidates, whereas the name of petitioner no. 6 was placed in Schedule -I of the list prepared for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner no. 6. was shown at serial no. 23 of the said Schedule. It is asserted that in the merit list names of respondent nos. 4 to 33 were not included. A copy of the merit list has been annexed as Annexure 6. The District Establishment Committee, on the basis of recommendation of the Sub -Committee and taking into consideration various letters of the State Government, decided that all the candidates found to be qualified according to the list, should be called upon to appear at a typing test and those who qualify at the typing test should be appointed in accordance with the merit list. It further decided that persons who could not qualify at the typing test should be allowed to appoint on provisional basis with a condition that they must qualify at the typing test within two years from the date of their provisional appointment. The said decision of the District Establishment Committee is dated 17.8.1990. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of decision of the said Committee the Deputy Commissioner Palamau, in contravention of the said decision invited all the candidates numbering 1863 who had made applications to appear at the typing test and a typing test was held on 10.9.1990. However, this invitation of the Deputy Commissioner is not annexed by the writ petitioners. The District Establishment Committee, thereafter, in its meeting dated 26.10.1990 decided to appoint only those persons who had qualified at the typing test completely ignoring the merit list prepared by the Sub -Committee and accepted by the Establishment Committee. It is said that though the petitioners asked for extract of the said resolution but the same was not supplied and as such, copy could not be annexed with this writ application. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner by his office order dated 13.11.90 issued appointment letters to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 as general candidates and respondent nos. 3 to 33 as members of Scheduled Caste. The aforesaid memo is Annexure 8 of the writ application. 3. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the issuance of Annexure 8 is completely in contravention of the earlier policy decision of the State Government which clearly postulates that typing test would be merely an additional qualification and the marks obtained by the candidates either at the school level or at the college level would be sufficient for their appointment. Continuing argument, the learned counsel has strongly contended that when the panel prepared by the Sub -Committee was accepted by the District Establishment Committee, there was no reason to make departure from the said panel in which petitioners were in the top and names of these private respondents were not there.