BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. INDRAJIT PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant board submitted that despite all out efforts made, his client has not been able to locate the relevant file bearing No. 23/Misc -4003 of 1996. There is no dispute that the appellant, as far back as on 27th March, 1991, decided to engage five football players for a period of six months. There is also no dispute that in order to fulfil the said desire a Committee was constituted on 8th June, 1991 and a trial of football players was conducted on 25th September, 1991. Despite that no panel was prepared but a list dated 11th March, 1992 containing the names of 13 players was prepared. The 10th position in the said list was occupied by the respondent -writ petitioner.

(2.) There is also no dispute that no engagement was made from the said list and a decision was taken to hold a fresh trial. For that purpose, another Committee was constituted and this Committee held a fresh trial and thereupon submitted a list of 13 players, in which the name of the petitioner - respondent did not figure. The first eight persons listed in both the lists were common and, accordingly, they were appointed as permanent Class -IV employees. In C.W.J.C. No. 3369 of 1996, writ petitioner - respondent contended that the Board had decided to engage him as the 9th player but despite such decision, he has not been engaged. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Chairman of the Board to consider the claim of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of making a representation to that effect. This representation was considered by the Secretary of the Board, before whom written contentions had been put forward by the petitioner -respondent as well as by the appellant -Board. The appellant -Board contended in writing before the Secretary that after engagement of eight players, a need was felt for half centre and forward centre and, accordingly, the Sports Officer proposed that either Tanvir Ahmed or Indrajit Pandey or Kalika Singh be appointed as the 9th player. It was contended by the appellant before the Secretary that on query and deliberation with the Officers, it was proposed that Sri Indrajit Pandey, should be chosen as the 9th candidate for half centre and forward centre, although the then Secretary differed. The Board in writing contended before the Secretary that finally the name of Sri Pandey, i.e. the petitioner -respondent, as the 9th candidate was approved by the Member (Administration) and the Chairman in consultation with the Member (Finance) and the Senior Law Advisor -cum -Additional Secretary. It was then contended that the Secretary proposed for taking a policy decision of appointing foot bailers as employees and, accordingly, the matter was placed before the Board and the Board did not ultimately agree to the proposal. In view of such contention in writing, and in view of the noting at page N/117 of the said file the Secretary found that the proposal to appoint the petitioner -respondent was accepted by the Senior Law Advisor - cum -Additional Secretary, Member (Administration) and the Chairman in consultation with the Member (Finance) for six months initially. This being the situation and eight other footballers having been appointed on the basis of similar approval, the Secretary recommended for appointment of the petitioner -respondent as the 9th footballer but as a Class -IV employee of the appellant - Board. Despite such recommendation, on the orders of the Joint Secretary of the Board, the petitioner -respondent was not appointed. It was contended that the policy decision for recruitment of players in the Board was not agreed and, accordingly, there ' is no scope for appointment of a footballer in the Board. This decision having been challenged in the subsequent writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 6396 of 1998, this Court while disposing of the same directed the Board to make appointment in the light of the Secretary 'sorder. The Board did not prefer any appeal against the said order and, accordingly, in law it should be deemed that the Board accepted the direction. In the result, the Board is estopped from putting forward its decision dated 19th February 1996 to refuse to engage a foot bailer as employee, inasmuch as before the said decision was taken, the Chairman had approved the appointment of the petitioner - respondent as the 9th player and similarly had approved the appointment of the eight other players and on the basis thereof, those eight players were appointed. Surprisingly, despite the said order of this Court passed on 20th April, 1998 once again the Chairman passed an order and thereby held out that the Chairman did not approve the appointment of the petitioner -respondent as the 9th player. While, however, saying so, it was not contended that the findings recorded by the Secretary in his order are incorrect and, in particular, that at page No. 117 of the concerned file, approval of the Chairman is not in existence. In order to satisfy ourselves, we called for the file containing in the said page which could not be produced. In the circumstances, the logical conclusion would be that the contention that the Chairman did not approve the appointment of the petitioner -respondent as the 9th football player is untrue and not acceptable. We repeat that the Secretary in his findings recorded that in the written statement filed by the lant -Board it was stated that finally the name of Sri Pandey as the 9th footballer was approved by the Member (Administration) and the Chairman in consultation with the Member (Finance) and the Senior Law Advisor -cum -Additional Secretary and further that the same is evidenced by Page No. 117 of the file concerned. While the file has not been produced, copy of the statements of facts submitted before the Secretary has also not been produced, nor there is a single whisper anywhere that the contents of Paragraph -5 of the findings of the Secretary are not borne out from the records. In such situations, the logical conclusion will be that the order as was impugned in the writ petition, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 7679 of 1999 was based on untruth and the same has been appropriately dealt with by the order under appeal -and accordingly, there is no scope for interference in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

(3.) AFTER we delivered the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash V/s. The Union of India reported in (1991)3 SCC 47. The said judgment has no relevance to the facts of this case.