TULSI DAS GOSHWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the abolition of the post of Law Officer of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (hereinafter called the said Board) under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed a Legal Assistant in the service of the said Board in the year 1973. The petitioner's case is that at the relevant point of time there were two posts in the legal department of the said Board, namely, the Law Agent and the Law Officer and the post of the Law Officer was created by a resolution of the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 29.11.1971. Further case of the petitioner is that the appointment to the post of Law Officer was to be made by way of promotion from amongst the employees of the said Board who must have the minimum qualification of being a law graduate. The petitioner's further case is that he was made Incharge of the Legal section -cum -Law Officer on 31.3.1990 and since then he worked on the said post till 1.5.1991 and the petitioner's positive assertion is that there is no complaint against his performance and without any complaint the petitioner was moved from the post in question on 2.5.1991 and the said post was filled by one Kedarpati Pandey, who was appointed as the Law Section Incharge of the said Board on ad hoc basis and against such filling up of the said post the petitioner made representation to the authorities of the Board but as no step was taken on the petitioner's representation, he filed a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C No. 3763 of 1991. The said writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the learned Judges of the Division Bench disposed of the said writ petition. While disposing of the said writ petition the learned Judges of the Division Bench noted the case of the petitioner but the Court came to the finding that the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Law Agent and it was also made clear that he was only made Law Officer on an officiating capacity and no procedure for promotion to the post of Law Officer was followed while appointing the petitioner as Law Officer on an officiating capacity. The learned Judges of the Division Bench were also pleased to hold that while on an officiating capacity the petitioner has right to hold the said post and the order by which he was relieved from the officiating capacity was not by way of punishment as the officiating post did not confer on the petitioner any right to continue on the post of the Law Officer. Therefore, the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not find any illegality in the said order nor the learned Judges found any illegality in the promotion of one Sri Kedarpati Pandey.

(3.) HOWEVER the learned Judges of the Division Bench disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction: