KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the present case, the challenge on behalf of the petitioner is primarily to the order No. 96 dated 26.11.1999 issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, respondent No. 4, Annexure-10 whereunder the petitioner's promotion to the Class-III post of Ganak made earlier vide order dated 28.01.1986, Annexure-1 has been cancelled and he has been reverted to the Class-IV post. The writ petitioner challenged the said order, as is evident, in the year 2000 and pursuant to the interim order passed in the instant case on 16.02.2000, the impugned order remain stayed. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated while working on the same Class-III post on 30.09.2012 in the district of Lohardaga under the respondent, Government of Jharkhand. It is incidental to state that the writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court before bifurcation of the parent State and has since been transferred in view of the provision of Section 34 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. In the aforesaid background, certain more facts are to be noticed.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post of Bull Attendant on 20.01.1977. According to him, he fulfilled the laid down criteria as per Annexure-2 dated 14.12.1983 issued by the Deputy Director (Headquarters) Animal Husbandry Department Bihar, Patna of having more than 60% marks in mathematics subject in matriculation and having passed matriculation-examination for being considered for promotion to Class-III post i.e. Ganak in the scale of Rs. 535-765/-. Vide Annexure-1, five persons including the present petitioner were promoted on 28.01.1986 by the order of the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Chhotanagpur & Santhal Pargana Development Authority, Ranchi to the post of Ganak on the basis of recommendation of the selection committee in the scale of Rs. 535-765/- on provisional basis. This promotion has been cancelled by the impugned order after issuance of a show cause notice firstly on 02.09.1996, which was also challenged in the instant writ petition and thereafter through another show cause dated 12.02.1998 which was followed with the passing of the impugned order on 26.11.1999. The petitioner admittedly filed his reply to the said show cause inter alia taking a plea that he fulfilled the prescribed criteria for such promotion in terms of the letter dated 14.12.1983, Annexure-2 and had also completed nine years of satisfactory service. He also stated that on the promoted post he had served for more 10 years without any complaint. He also took a plea that the absence of authority as made out by the respondent against the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, is not to be taken against the petitioner as he fulfilled the requisite criteria for such promotion. It was also stated by the petitioner, specifically at para-24, that four other similarly situated persons, who were also promoted along with the petitioner to Class-III post, are continuing in the said Class-III post. The said statement also stands un-rebutted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. He also made a statement that the person junior to him namely Surendra Tiwari is also continuing on the said Class-III post, which is arbitrary and violative of principles of nature justice and the same has also not been rebutted in the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the aforesaid state of facts even assumably to be correct, is a case of irregular promotion and not suffering from any patent illegality. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari and Ors., 2010 9 SCC 247 in support of the aforesaid contention that such an irregularity is always curable. He has also relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Narender Chadha and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1986 AIR(SC) 638 submitting that when a person like the petitioner has been allowed to function in higher post for more than 13 years it would be unjust to hold that he has no sort of claim to such post and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as person not belonging to the service at all. Therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner, who has served on Class-III post and retired as such during the pendency of the writ petition should not be denied the benefits of such post after his retirement by upholding the impugned order issued by the respondents. It is also stated that he has enjoyed the salary and allowances of Class-III post pursuant to his promotion in the year 1986 till the date of his retirement.