PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner initially prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned recommendation dated the 28th February, 1987, as contained in Annexure -5 to the writ petition and further for a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the posts which they held till they attained the age of superannuation without giving effect to the impugned recommendation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition, inter alia, praying therein that an appropriate writ be issued by this Court quashing the order dated the 18th April, 1987, as contained in Annexure -6 to the said application framed in the writ petition as also the order dated the 18th April, 1987, as contained in Annexure -7 thereto.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The Bihar Rajya Awar Seva Chayan Parishad. The Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Steno, Sub -Inspector in the office of the Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. The requisite qualification for such posts was that the candidate should be graduate from a recognised University. The aforementioned Board also invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Steno Assistant Sub -Inspector in the said office and in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, So far as the posts of Steno Sub -Inspector are concerned, the same were in the scale of Rs. 730 -1080 whereas the posts of Steno Assistant Sub -Inspector were in the scale of Rs. 680 -965. Admittedly, the petitioners applied for the posts of Steno Sub -Inspector whereas the respondent Nos. 4 to 16 being eligible for appointment to the said posts applied for both the posts of Steno Assistant Sub -Inspector and Steno Sub -Inspector. It is also admitted that the respondents 4 to 16 filed two different applications for two different posts. The petitioners appeared in one examination, whereas the respondents 4 to 16 appeared in two examinations, allegedly for appointment in two different posts.