SOMESH CHANDRA BISWAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge an office ORDER :issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Building Construction & Housing under his memo no. 5361, dated 11.12.1987 (Annexure 6) by which the representation filed by respondent no. 6 was allowed and in the final gradation list of Assistant Government Architects, he was shown senior to the petitioner.

(2.) THE undisputed facts giving rise to the dispute of seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 can be stated as follows. On 28.8.1963, respondent no. 6 was granted a scholarship (Annexure A) by the Government of Bihar in the Public Works Department for the study in Architecture & Town Planning. The grant of scholarship was subject to the condition that respondent no.6 would have to serve the Government of Bihar for a period not less than five years on completion of his studies. The condition was secured by execution of a bond by respondent no.6. On completion of the studies, respondent no.5 in pursuance of the condition attached to the scholarship was appointed as Architectural Assistant for a period of six months from the date of his joining by notification, dated 10.11.1957 (Annexure B). While respondent no. 6 was working on that basis, advertisement no. 5/1968 (Aimexure D) was issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission ('the Commission', hereinafter) on 2.2.1968 inviting application for appointment against three posts of Architectural Assistant (one post being reserved for SC/ST subject to availability of candidates) in the pay scale of Rs. 325 -505/Both the petitioner and respondent no.6, along with others, made application in response to that advertisement. The Commission made its recommendations for appointment to the post of Architectural Assistant by its letter dated 26.7.1968 addressed to the Secretary, Building Construction. Department. In this letter, the names of the recommended candidates were listed in ORDER :of preference with the names of the petitioner and respondent no.6 at serial 1. and 2 respectively. In the case of the petitioner, the recommendation to give him, at the time of appointment, one advance increment and in the case of respondent no.6 two advance increments.

(3.) FOLLOWING the Commission's recommendation, notification no. 23657, dated 2.12.1968 (Annexure 7 = Annexure E) was issued appointing respondent no.6 as an Architectural Assistant with effect from 27.7.1968 and placing him on probation for two years. It was further stipulated in the appointment notification that his seniority would be as per the Commission's recommendation.