M G SHARAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these seven writ petitions were heard together on the re-quest of the parties as they chiefly arise out of the notifications appointing officers from the Irrigation Department to River Valley Project Department (hereinafter referred to as 'R. V. P. D.') and placing them senior to the petitioners.

(2.) C. W. J. C. Nos. 572 and 681 of 1967 were filed by M. G. Sharan impleading the State of Bihar as respondent No. 1 and S. K. Banerji as respondent No. 2. C. W. J. C. 572 was admitted on 14-9-67 and in this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated the 26th August, 1967 (Annexure A to the main application) placing the services of respondent No. 2, who belonged to the cadre of the Irrigation Department, at the disposal of R. V. P. D., and he has asked this court to quash the said notification, and to command respondent No. 1 by a writ of mandamus to fill up the vacancy of the post of Chief Engineer in Gandak and Sone Barrage Project after considering the rightful claim of the petitioner over the said post. Subsequently it appears that the State Government, by notification dated the 27th of September, 1967 appointed respondent No. 2 as Chief Engineer of Gandak and Sone Barrage Projects. Hence the petitioner filed another petition bearing C. W. J. C. No. 681 of 1967, which was admitted on 2-11-67 wherein he has marked the said notification as Annexure C challenging the same and has asked this Court for an appropriate writ as in the case of C. W. J. C. 572.

(3.) This very petitioner filed a third petition bearing C. W. J. C. No. 591 of 1967, which was admitted on 21-9-67, impleading the State of Bihar as respondent No. 1 and U. K. Verma as respondent No. 2. In this petition he has challenged the notification dated the 23rd of February, 1966 (Annexure A thereof) by which the State Government in the R. V. P. D. promoted U. K. Verma, Superintending Engineer, Sone Barrage Circle, R. V. P. D., to officiate as Chief Engineer in the same department, and posted him as Chief Engineer incharge of Tenughat Dam Project. In this petition the petitioner claims to be senior to respondent No. 2 and he has asked this Court to quash the said notification contained under Annexure A and to command respondent No. 1 by a writ of mandamus to act in accordance with law and to give the petitioner his rightful claim, to be appointed in place of respondent No. 2.