RAJ KUMAR SON OF LATE RAM KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the order contained in memo no. 3913 dated 2.11.2005 (Annexure -7) by which the petitioner has been issued appointment letter for Class -IV post of Peon whereas he was recommended for appointment on Class -Ill post by the Central Compassionate committee of the State Government.

(2.) EARLIER also the petitioner had approached this Court for compassionate appointment by filing CWJC No. 703/2005 which was disposed of by order dated 2.5.2005 with a direction to the Compassionate Committee to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the order. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was taken up by the Central Compassionate Committee of the State Government at its meeting held on 25.7.2005 which, after considering all matters, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on Grade -C post in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590 with the rider that the Administrative Department shall satisfy itself that the petitioner is fit for appointment on Grade -C post in terms of the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by this Court in LPA No. 1209/2000 (State of Bihar vs. Madhuri Kumari Sinha). Thereafter by letter dated 7.10.2005 (Annexure -6) the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department informed the petitioner to appear in the office of the Vigilance Commissioner on 30.10.2005 at 3.00 P.M. alongwith documents relating to his educational qualifications in original for the purpose of evidence. The petitioner appeared and it is alleged in the writ petition that he was asked to contact respondent no. 9, the Deputy Secretary and when he met him he showed displeasure with the petitioner and humiliated him for having filed contempt petition against the Secretary of the Department as a result of which the petitioner became nervous for fear of losing the job. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary called two more persons in his office and the petitioner was asked to appear in examination immediately and a plain paper was supplied to him. The petitioner became very nervous and requested for deferring the examination on the ground that he had no knowledge that an examination would be given. It is further stated that he was asked certain questions of general knowledge which, he alleges, was done in an intimidating manner and he was further directed to write two applications to the District Magistrate in twenty lines each and also to type certain extracts in English. He was further asked certain questions of mathematics which admittedly he correctly answered. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 2.11.2005, the petitioner was informed that on the basis of the qualification and working ability and efficiency as examined by the Departmental Committee he was selected for Class - IV post of peon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation before the Vigilance Commissioner stating that he had been discriminated because he had earlier fifed the contempt petition. Ultimately since nothing came out of his representation, he has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reliance by the respondents on the case of Madhuri Kumari Sinha is totally uncalled for in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the said decision was rendered in very different circumstances where the petitioner of that case, although recommended by the Compassionate Committee for appointment on Class -III post, but on being subjected to a test of calculation and letter writing, she failed in both the matters, and it was held by this Court that the respondent -Madhuri Kumari Sinha was unable to write or make calculation and accordingly offered Class -IV post and the action of the authorities was not arbitrary. In the case of the petitioner, learned counsel refers to the papers of the petitioner which have been annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit from which it cannot be said that the petitioner is unable to write or to make calculation. In fact, it is stated that it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has made calculations correctly.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also submits that no reply has been given in the counter affidavit to the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the manner in which the test had been conducted when he was not even informed about the same and was merely required to produce the certificates in original for verification by the authorities.