BINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for quashing of Memo No. 1673 (s) dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure -10) issued by the Joint Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna by which, after 19 years of service as Assistant, petitioner has been reverted to the non -existent post of routine clerk. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from making any recovery as a consequence of such reversion.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, he was initially appointed as routine clerk on compassionate ground due to death of his father in harness, although, as per his contention, he was fit to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Assistant by dint of his qualification. When he came to know that other persons, in similar circumstances, were later on promoted/appointed to higher post considering their eligibility, he represented to the authorities and on consideration of his representation, he was appointed on the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 730 -1,080/ - by order dated 14.10.1982 vide Annexure -1. Later on, as per requirements under Joint Cadre Act, petitioner appeared in the departmental examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting and was declared successful vide notification dated 28.2.1989, as contained in Annexure -2. He also appeared in the departmental examination and was declared successful vide office order no. 92 dated 5.6.1996, as contained in Annexure -3 and also cleared the second paper of the departmental examination which was notified by order dated 15.4.1998, vide Annexure -4, in the meanwhile, considering the satisfactory service of the petitioner, his services as Assistant was confirmed with effect from 14.10.1987 by office order dated 22.12.1992, vide Annexure -5. Counting his services on the post of Assistant with effect from 14.10.1982, he was allowed first time bound promotion by office order dated 22.12.1992 vide Annexure -6. However, petitioner was served with a show cause notice through office order dated 16.7.2001 vide Annexure -8, mentioning that his promotion as Assistant, vide Annexure -1, and his confirmation, vide Annexure -5, were subject to approval of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. He was informed that the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has now clarified that no repeated promotions on higher post/pay scale can be granted to an incumbent on compassionate ground, as has been granted to the petitioner. Therefore, he was asked to show cause within fifteen days as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Assistant to his basic post of routine clerk.

(3.) PETITIONER replied to the said show cause notice by filing his reply on 30.7.2001, vide Annexure - 9. In his reply, he specifically raised four specific contention which have been mentioned in paragraph 16 of the writ application also. In the writ application, petitioner 'sspecific contention is that without at all considering the points raised by him in his reply to show cause, respondent -Joint Secretary has rejected his reply by the impugned order, vide Annexure -10.