LAWS(JHAR)-2010-12-164

STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. JAYANT KUMAR

Decided On December 21, 2010
STATE OF JHARKHAND; ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, JHARKHAND, RANCHI Appellant
V/S
JAYANT KUMAR; KUMAR MAHESH CHANDRA : RAGHABENDRA CHOUDHARY : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA : SUVASH CHANDRA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the State submits that the circular which was earlier issued by the State stands superseded by the circular (No.3/R 1-1054/91 Ka - 273) issued in the year 1992 on 17.1.1992. This circular, according to the learned counsel for the State, supersedes earlier circulars, the relevant clause of which reads as follows:-

(2.) According to the learned counsel, there are rules framed under Article 309 by implication because the State of Bihar had issued circulars in the year 1950 and earlier circulars which had been issued prior to promulgation of the Constitution would be deemed to be the rules under Article 309 and provisions are provided in such adopted rules, in which specific qualifications of Junior Engineer have been prescribed.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that they were in the Department as Draftsman, Lab Technicians, Clerks, Assistants and Tracer and if such employees acquire some qualification of technical nature in the shape of Diploma, then they were held to be capable of being appointed as Junior Engineer by the circular of 1976. According to the counsel for the State, this was perhaps a one time measure and because there being some requirement at that time, such provision was made; otherwise, recruitment of Junior Engineer has to be made strictly in compliance of the rules of recruitment and there being rules of recruitment as adopted and framed by the State, such kind of ad hoc arrangement cannot be deemed to have been continuing and more particularly, after issuance of the 1992 circular, they stood superseded. Therefore, the answer to the question framed by the learned Single Judge, while making reference, requires to be answered accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employees stressed that it cannot be deemed that the circular of 1992 had the effect of altering qualification as fixed in 1976. The order of 1976 can be construed to be an order in accordance with Article 162 of the Constitution and the persons possessing such qualifications can always be promoted or appointed as Junior Engineer. Learned counsel also submitted that in the rules which were under Article 309, such qualifications were prescribed. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the considered view that in the circular of 1992, all other circulars issued would stand superseded. The rules which were deemed to be in force by circular of the Government would govern the recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer, being rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Junior Engineer is a direct recruitment post and those who are in the Department, if at all, want to get any chance with the direct recruitment, they could choose to compete with others. Seeking promotion as claimed is a camouflage of 1976 circular, which cannot be deemed to be in currency for those who have acquired qualification by having been in service.