RAMA SHANKAR RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-Superintending Engineer, Saran Circle, Road Construction Department, Hajipur issued one order No. 457 dated 21.4.97, by which the promotion earlier granted to the petitioner in the super-time scale of accounts clerk has been cancelled and respondent-Uday Shankar Mishra has been granted promotion to such super-time scale. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of reversion dated 21.4.97.

(2.) The relevant facts to adjudicate the matter show that the petitioner was initially appointed as junior accounts clerk in the year 1971. Subsequently, the posts of junior accounts clerk and senior accounts clerk were merged on 18.2.81. On such merger, the petitioner was provided with pay of senior accounts clerk and the designation was changed as accounts clerk since merger. Subsequently, the petitioner has been promoted to senior selection grade scale of accounts clerk with effect from 1.4.1981 by one order dated 16.12.89. So far as respondent-Uday Shankar Mishra is concerned, he was appointed as junior accounts clerk on 11.8.1961 and then promoted as senior accounts clerk on 30.10.1965. He was also granted senior selection grade scale with effect 1.4.81. When the seniority list was published on 23.8.85, admittedly the name of the respondent No. 7 was placed above the petitioner. No objection has been raised by the petitioner against such seniority granted in the senior selection grade scale. After recommendation of Vth Pay Revision Committee, super-time scale was provided to 2.5% of the cadre post. Accordingly, one post of the cadre of accounts clerk was provided with super-time scale. Initially, one Surendra Prasad Singh was granted super-time scale with effect from 1.1.1989, who retired on 31.1.92. After his retirement, the petitioner was granted super-time scale by one order dated 21.9.92, applying the roster relating to reservation. Admittedly, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste category whereas the respondent No. 7 belongs to general category. The petitioner is also junior to the respondent No. 7. However, the promotion to super-time scale was granted in favour of the petitioner applying the rules of reservation.

(3.) Earlier, respondent No. 7 being aggrieved, moved before this Court against the order dated 21.9.92 in C.W.J.C. No. 10837/92. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government issued one letter on 7.7.95 cancelling the earlier reservation policy made by one order dated 6.7.92, in pursuance of which the petitioner was promoted to super-time scale on 21.9.92. In the light of the aforesaid circular, the writ petition was disposed of on 15.2.96 and remitted the matter to the respondents to consider the case of respondent No. 7. Subsequently, in pursuance of decision of this Court and the Supreme Court, the respondent-State issued one order on 30.4.97 and ordered that the single post, if sole vacant prior to 10.2.95 is liable to be filled up, in accordance with earlier roster system. Appointment/promotion made before 10.2.95 will not be affected. When the petitioner came to know that the respondents had taken step to cancel the earlier order of promotion, on remand of writ petition, which was preferred by respondent No. 7, moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9088/95. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 13.12.95. Thereafter the respondents issued the impugned order dated 21.4.97 reverting the petitioner in lower grade and granting promotion in favour of respondent No. 7 to super-time scale.