RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE INDRADEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O GAHARPATHRA, P.S. PATNA, DISTRICT PALAMAU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the office order under Memo No. 2327 dated 03.11.2006 issued by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioners promotion to Class III posts was canceled and the petitioners were reverted to Class IV posts. The petitioners were employee of Animal Husbandry & Fishery Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner no.1 was appointed on 23.10.1973 in Class IV post of Chara Sardar and was posted at Hay Making Centre, Kumandih, Palamau. Petitioner no.2 was appointed on 14.12.1978 in Class IV post of Peon and was posted at Animal Hospital, Ramna, Palamau. Petitioner no. 3 was appointed some time in the year 1978 in Class IV posts and was posted at SLPP, Daltonganj. The petitioners state that they have been appointed after following the due process of law. The petitioners state that they were promoted vide office order dated 28.01.1986 issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Chhotanagpur & Santhal Paragana Development Authority, Ranchi. By virtue of the said order all these three petitioners were promoted to Class III posts. The petitioners state that after being promoted they had been working in their respective places in Class III posts. Petitioner no.3 was issued notice to show cause as to why his promotion will not be cancelled/recalled, in view of the fact that the Regional Director who has promoted the petitioner did not have any power to grant promotion. The petitioner no. 3 had sought several documents and the copy of the judgment from the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Palamau, so, that he can properly file his reply to the notice, which was not supplied. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 03.11.2006, the promotion granted to the petitioner no. 3 was recalled by cancelling the promotion order dated 28.01.1986. This gave rise to this litigation.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners submit that not only the impugned order is violative of the principal of natural justice, but also on the ground that at the relevant point of time, the Regional Director had authority to promote the employees from Class IV to Class III posts. He further submits that after 20 years the order of promotion could not have been recalled. He submit that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners at any point of time and as such the petitioners cannot be penalised. Lastly it is submit that the case of the petitioners are covered by the judgment dated 11th April, 2014 passed in the case of Krishna Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others in C.W.J.C. Case No. 391 of 2000 (P) .

(3.) Counsel for the State submits that the Regional Director, had no power to promote and thus, the promotion granted to the petitioners is illegal. He further submits that in the case of Ram Krishna Choudhary & others Vs. The State of Bihar/Jharkhand & Ors in CWJC Case No. 536 of 2000(R) this Honourable Court has held that the Regional Director of Animal Husbandry Department was not competent to make any appointment. He submits that since the promotion was granted without authority or jurisdiction there is no illegality in recalling the same. He submits that an illegality can be cured at any point of time and as such the petitioners cannot be allowed to take plea that they have worked on the promoted post for 20 years and thus their promotion orders cannot be recalled. It is lastly submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have already been superannuated from the services and as such their post retiral benefits cannot be fixed taking into consideration that they have been promoted to Class III posts.