LAWS(PAT)-2008-6-61

MANORANJAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Decided On June 06, 2008
Manoranjan Prasad Singh Appellant
V/S
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant obtained a MBA degree and was accorded two increments. He thereupon obtained a doctoral degree.

(2.) At this time he was not accorded any encouragement by way of grant of increment or otherwise. That, in fact, resulted in filing of the writ petition by the appellant. Before the writ court it was accepted that the appellant, being an employee of the Board but not an officer of the Board, is governed by the Standing Order and the Standing Order does not provide for grant of any encouragement by way of increment to an employee who is covered by the Standing Order, but such an encouragement is available to an Officer of the Board, who is covered by Bihar State Electricity Board Accounts Service Cadre Rules, 1991. As a result the writ petition was dismissed. In the writ petition it was urged that in terms of the said Rules the appellant should have been considered for promotion no sooner he acquire the MBA Degree. Clause (6) of the said Rules provides the method of recruitment of Officers covered by the said Rules. It directs that fresh recruitments to the cadre shall be at the level of Accounts Officer and 35% of the vacancies occurring every year in the temporary service and cadre post of Accounts Officers shall be filled by promotion from amongst the Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers who are in the service of the Board or any of its establishment including Area Board and Generation -cum -Transmission Organization. The said clause further provides that 5% of such vacancies shall be filled up by promotion from amongst those employees of the Board who have acquired qualification as laid down in Clause (7) of the said Rules. Clause (7) of the said Rules prescribes the qualification and eligibility conditions for direct recruitment. It provides that the minimum qualification for being appointed is, amongst others, MBA with specialization in Finance. The said clause further provides, amongst others, that the required age of Accounts Officers shall be between 21 to 32 years, but up to 50 years for the Board 'semployees. It was contended in the writ petition that on 20th February, 1993 certain recruitment in the post of Accounts Officers by way of promotion had been granted. As on 20th February, 1993. the appellant had crossed the age of 50 years. In those circumstances, as on 20th February, 1993 when the subject promotions were accorded or even on the date when the process for selecting candidates for such promotions had commenced, the appellant though had educational qualification to be appointed as an Accounts Officer but having had crossed the age bar was ineligible for being appointed so. In the circumstances, we find no reason to pronounce that the appellant 'scase for promotion had not been considered at the time of recruitment pursuant to the said Rules.

(3.) THE appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.