STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions which succeeded before a learned single Judge of this Court was an advertisement by which applications were invited from Class III employees to appear in the Limited Competitive Examination, 2005 for filling up the promotee quota available in Class II posts of the Government. The advertisement, upon being corrected by the corrigendum, depicted that the second Limited Competitive Examination would be for the 42nd batch and cut -off date for which would be 1st August, 1998; whereas the third Limited Competitive Examination would be for the 43rd batch also having cut -off date of 1st August, 1998. The advertisement further provided that fourth and fifth Limited Competitive Examination shall be held for the 44th and 45th batch respectively but for them the cut -off date shall be 1st August, 1999. The advertisement lastly contended that the sixth Limited Competitive Examination shall be for the 46th batch for which the cut -off date shall be 1st August, 2000. There is no dispute that steps, as were taken to advertise and to invite applications for appearing in the Limited Competitive Examinations to be held amongst candidates who shall respond to the said advertisement, are governed by the Bihar Administrative Service (Appointment through Limited Competitive Examination) Rules, 1991. The said Rules, amongst others, provide that a Class III employee if succeeds in Limited Competitive Examination, shall be promoted to a Class II post in the Government reserved for accommodating such promoted candidate provided he is within 45 years of age. The said Rules also provide that in order to become eligible to appear in such Limited Competitive Examination a Class III employee must have worked as such for a period of not less than ten years. By reason of the said Rules, as provided therein, a Class III employee is entitled to appear in such examination only three times. The Rules, therefore, make it abundantly clear that a Class III employee on completion of ten years of service is entitled to be promoted to a Class II post reserved for them if succeeding in Limited Competitive Examination in three attempts until he reaches the age of 45 years. It, therefore, signifies that promotional quota available in Class II post shall be ascertained and persons eligible in terms of the Rules shall be afforded opportunity to prove themselves to be fit for being promoted to such posts. As a result, Rules require that while such vacancies should be ascertained, examinations should also be held every year. The impugned advertisement also makes it abundantly clear that the State also understood the Rules in the same manner and accordingly decided that eligibility cut -off shall be yearly, which denotes that those eligible up to the cut -off date should compete among themselves for being promoted to the quota of posts reserved for them as ascertained on those cut -off dates.

(2.) THE impugned advertisement was published in the year 2005 and the corrigendum thereof was published on 10th July, 2005. The advertisement wanted to fill up vacancies as were available upto 1st August, 2000 and people who were eligible as on 1st August, 2000 could only appear in the Limited Competitive Examination in response to the said advertisement. Petitioners, who approached this Court by filing the writ petitions, were admittedly not eligible as on 1st August, 2000. to sit in Limited Competitive Examinations in terms of the said Rules, since by that time they did not serve as Class III employee for ten years. The main plunk of contention of the petitioners was that in 2005 vacancies of 1998 to 2000 were attempted to be filled in through Competitive Examinations; whereas as on the date of the advertisement petitioners completed ten years of service and as such acquired the right to sit in the examinations for being promoted in the reserved category. They contended that the Bihar Public Service Commission is slow in discharging its statutory obligations in conducting regular examinations and as such in the 2005 Examination they should also be permitted to appear. They succeeded before the learned single Judge and hence these appeals.

(3.) AS aforesaid, Rules envisage ascertainment of vacancy on yearly basis and to fill up the same by those who were eligible to supply those vacancies. In the event the order of the learned single Judge is sustained, that would entail writ petitioners to supply the vacancies that cropped up on 1st August, 2000 or immediately prior thereto, without being eligible to supply such vacancies. That would result in grant of a facility to the writ petitioners which the Rules have not granted to them and at the same time the same would infringe the right of those persons who became eligible to supply the vacancies which arose upto 1st August, 2000, by exposing them to competition with persons who are not eligible to offer themselves to appear in such examinations.