MITHILESHWARI SARAN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questions arising for decision in these four writ jurisdiction cases being almost similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in each of these four cases is a member of the senior branch of the Bihar Finance Service (hereinafter referred to as the service). They all challenge the legality of the Government notification dated 25th of June, 1974.

(2.) Facts necessary for decision of these cases may briefly be stated. The service condition of the petitioners and other members of the service, some of whom have been made respondents in these cases, are governed by the Bihar Finance Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to Rule 3, the Service consists of two classes of Officers:

(3.) For filling up the aforesaid 19 posts the committee recommended the names of 20 officers of the junior branch of the Service who were considered fit for promotion. These names included those of Jai Krishna Prasa-i Sinha, Jagannath Sinha, Krishnadeo Narain Sinha and Janki Jiwan Prasad Sinha their serial numbers in the list being Nos. 14 to 17 respectively. Jai Krishna Prasad Sinha, Krishnadeo Narain Sinha and Janki Jiwan Prasad Sinha are respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively in C.W.J.C. No. 1059 of 1973. Jai Krishna Prasad Sinha and Janki Jiwan Prasad Sinha are respondents Nos. 4 and 6 respectively in C.W.J.C. No. 1129 of 1974. Krishnadeo Narain Sinha and Janki Jiwan Prasad Sinha are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1238 and 1470 of 1974. Jagannath Sinha is the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1238 of 1974. According to the Committee, Nithileshwari Saran Sinha (petitioner in C. W. J. 0. No. 1059 of 1973), Rishikesh Kumar Sinha (petitioners in C W. J. C. No. 1129 of 1974) and Paras Nath Singh (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1470 of 1974) were not fit for promotion and, therefore, their names were not recommended. The name of one Murari Saran Verma (respondent No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 1059 of 1973) was also not recommended by the Committee.