NIRMAL MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.3.92 (annexure 2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for appointment of IVth grade employees including respondent nos. 5 and 6 ignoring the case of the petitioner who claims to be senior to respondent nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner 's case is that he was appointed on casual basis on 5.5.83 and he was shown at serial no.3 in the attendance register. It is stated that in the year, 1987 -88 a panel was prepared of the daily wages employees and the petitioner was put at serial no.53 in the said panel. Subsequently in the year, 1989 a large number of vacancies for the post of peons in different offices within the district of Giridih arose and an advertisement was made on 11.1.89 inviting application for appointment on the post of IVth grade employees. Pursuant to that advertisement the petitioner along with other persons including respondent nos. 5 and 6 applied and after following the due process of appointment a panel was prepared for appointment of IVth grade employees. In the said panel the petitioner was put at serial no. 72 while respondent nos. 5 and 6 were shown at serial nos. 73 and 74 respectively. The said panel of 1989 was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWJC No. 1756/89R on the ground that one Dilip Kumar was illegally shown above the petitioner although he was junior to the petitioner. The writ application was ultimately permitted to be withdrawn with the observation that since the panel of 1989 was prepared after due advertisement and after calling applications, the same should not be disturbed. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year, 1991 -92 a panel was again prepared on the basis of the panel of 1989 wherein the corresponding serial nos. of 1989 panel was also mentioned. In 1991 -92 panel the petitioner was placed above respondent nos. 5 and 6. A copy of the said panel has been annexed as annexure 1 to the writ application. But, the respondents ignoring the aforementioned panel, recommended for appointment of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of grade IV ignoring the case of the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand the respondent no. 6, in his counter affidavit, virtually admitted the facts stated in the writ petition but his claim is based on the fact that the petitioner was appointed on casual basis in the year, 1983 while respondent no.6 was appointed on casual basis in the year, 1982 and, therefore, the respondent no.6 was senior to the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5.