GOKUL PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions have been heard together as most of the issues involved are common. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the final gradation list of Assistansts published on 3rd of August, 1992 pursuant to rules framed under the Assistants of Secretariat and Attached Offices Joint Cadre Act, 1989(Bihar Act 9 of 1989) (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Cadre Act). The rules, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Joint Cadre Rules ') which have been framed pursuant to the Rule making power vested in the Government under Section 10 of the Act, dated 28th May, 1992 were published in the Gazette on the 1st of June, 1992 but are deemed to have come into effect from 30th August, 1988. Rule 14 of the Rules lays down the principles for determination of inter -se seniority of Assistants in the joint cadre.

(2.) THE petitioners in CWJC Nos. 10944 of 1992 and 5313 of 1994 have challenged the validity of the aforesaid Rule 14, particularly clauses (Kha) (Ga) and (Gha) of Sub -rule 2 thereof. In CWJC No. 9641 of 1993, the petitioners, though they have not challenged the validity of the rules, have challenged the correctness of the final gradation list published, and have prayed for a direction to the respondents to place them at proper places in the gradation list which according to them, has been prepared in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioners is that the inter se seniority of the petitioners, vis -a -vis, those recruited on the basis of competitive examinations should be determined by reference to the dates on which they were placed on probation. Their case is that even though they were appointed much earlier than the direct recruits appointed pursuant to the competitive tests held in the years 1971 and 1973, and even though they were placed on probation much earlier than the dates on which such direct recruits were appointed, by an improper interpretation of the rules, they are sought to be placed below the direct recruits recruited through the competitive examinations who, regardless of their date of appointment, are placed en block above them. Their grievance is that by issuance of the impugned gradation list, the settled seniority of the petitioners is sought to be disturbed, and that too after the matter had been finally decided by the High Court in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) IT is not disputed that in the year 1971 a limited competitive test was held, which has been treated as equivalent to regular competitive test. Though the said examination was held in the year 1971, some appointments were made by order dated 27.4.1973. Subsequently in the year 1973, a regular competitive test was also held, but based on the result of the said test, the first batch of appointees were appointed by order dated 22.2.1975. The appointees appointed bn the basis of the competitive tests were placed on probation from the date of their joining. Their period of probation was also two years. Thereafter they were to be confirmed, if their performance was found to be satisfactory. Unfortunately the appointments made on the basis of 1971 limited competitive examination, were not made in one batch, and in fact the last appointee appointed on the basis of 1971 limited competitive examination was appointed as late as in the year 1986. Similarly those appointed on the basis of 1973 regular competitive examination were appointed in four batches in the years 1975, 1977, 1980 and 1981. It would thus appear that successful candidates of the 1971 and 1973 competitive tests were appointed in phases over a period of about 15 years.