STATE OF BIHAR Vs. JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Bihar and its Officers, aggrieved by the order dated 20th June, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ application, have preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner -respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) joined as Instructor of Physical Education, a post belonging to Subordinate Education Service in the year 1973.

(2.) By notification dated 31st of December, 1996 he was transferred and posted as Divisional Superintendent, Physical Education, Saran Division, a post belonging to Bihar Education Service Class II in his own scale of pay. The petitioner in pursuance of the said notification joined at the transferred place on 3rd of July, 2000. Case of the petitioner for promotion to the Bihar Education Service Class II was considered and the file was sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission for its concurrence. However, before the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) could take any decision, the same was recalled purportedly on the ground that in view of notification dated 9.05.2003, concurrence of the Commission is not required. Ultimately by notification dated 17.11.2003 the petitioner was appointed and promoted to the post of Assistant Director, a post in the Bihar Education Service Class II in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500 -200 -10500. Writ petitioner worked on the promoted post for a period of less than two years but thereafter by notification dated 20.07.2005 his promotion to the Bihar Education Service Class II was cancelled on the ground that notification dated 9.05.2003 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department mandates consultation with the Commission, but the writ petitioner was promoted without any such consultation.

(3.) WRIT petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred the application before this Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has quashed the notification cancelling his promotion on the ground that there is no necessity of obtaining concurrence of the Commission.