INDRAJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia to direct the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi to produce the entire records of the proceeding dated 6.6.2001 whereunder private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been promoted on the post of Vaidya ignoring the better claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -B to the Counter affidavit of C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 as also to quash the order dated 7.6.2001 as contained in Annexure -C to the counter affidavit of C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 whereunder private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been informed of the decision to promote them on the post of Vaidya.

(2.) C .W.J.C. No. 4549 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia to direct the authorities of the Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi to pay the petitioner arrears of salary of the post of Vaidya for the period between July, 1999 to March, 2001 when he served as Vaidya in the light of the order bearing Memo No. 1007 dated 30.3.1991 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner -cum - Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi as contained in Annexure -1 of C.W.J.C. No. 4549 of 2005. Under order dated 11.12.2006 C.W.J.C. No. 4549 of 2005 was directed to be listed along with C.W.J.C. No. 8880 of 2001 which order was again reiterated on 24.4.2008 when it was directed that C.W.J.C. No. 4549 of 2005 be taken up side by side with C.W. J.C. No. 8880 of 2001, accordingly both matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) PRIVATE Respondent No. 4, Prakash Choudhary also questioned the validity of the order dated 30.3.1991, Annexure -2 whereunder petitioner was promoted on the post of Vaidya by filing C.W.J. C. No. 2882 of 1991, which was entertained by this Court and during the pendency of the said writ application Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi was also promoted on the post of Vaidya under orders dated 3.1.1998 which is contained in Annexure -7. Aforesaid order was also assailed by amending C.W.J.C. No. 2882of 1991 and impleading Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi as Respondent No. 6 in the said writ application. This court under judgment dated 17.8.2000, Annexure -4 allowed C.W.J.C. No. 2882 of 1991 in part and quashed the promotion of Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi on the post of Vaidya as reflected under orders dated 3.1.1998, Annexure -7 to the said writ application. Perusal of the said judgment further indicates that during the hearing of the said writ application this Court also considered the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Service Condition) Rules, 1964(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and observed that the provisions contained in Sub -rule 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules relates to the ministerial officers and will have no application to the technical officers as they have been put in a separate category in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Rules. The aforesaid judgment dated 17.8.2000 was assailed by the private Respondent No. 4, Prakash Choudhary as also by Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi by filing Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1258 and 1259 of 2000. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of under judgment dated 12.3.2001, whereunder the appeal filed by private Respondent No. 4, Prakash Choudhary was allowed cancelling the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Vaidya. The appeal of Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi was, however, dismissed with observation that as the petitioner herein and Raghubansh Kishore Prasad Sahi have worked on the post of Vaidya, no steps be taken to recover the amount for the period they have actually worked on the post of Vaidya and with further direction to the authorities to consider the matter of promotion on the post of Vaidya afresh in the light of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Rules. Division Bench under orders dated 12.3.2001 did not upset the finding of the learned Single Judge that Sub -rule(5) of Rule 7 provides for promotion of the ministerial officers and not of the technical officers as they are governed by Rule -6