DHARAMDEO MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned Sr.S.C.I appearing for the Respondent-State.

(2.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners, have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :-

(3.) Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioners were initially appointed by the Respondent-State of Bihar as Assistant Registrar, Department of Cooperative, after following the procedure prescribed by law on 25/2/1986, 14/3/1986, 1/5/87, 11/5/89 and 1/5/89 respectively. The State of Bihar vide notification No. 1240 dtd. 29/4/2002 specified 54 posts of Deputy Registrar in the scale of Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.15,200.00. It has been averred that suddenly the State of Bihar vide impugned notification contained in memo No. 426 dtd. 21/2/2006 reduced the cadre strength of Deputy Registrar from 54 to 44 with effect from 1/1/96 and the said notification shall be applicable to the State of Bihar only and not for the State of Jharkhand as the State of Jharkhand never took such decision. It has been further averred that on 20/4/2008, the State of Jharkhand in the Department of Co-operative, without authority of law and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioners, cancelled the promotion order of the petitioners on Junior Selection Grade (Deputy Registrar), vide notification contained in Memo dtd. 20/5/2008, with intimation to the Treasury of the State of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand, after receipt of the notification dtd. 20/5/2008 contained in Annexure-6, issued notification contained in Memo dtd. 21/7/2010 without application of mind and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners have filed joint representation to the Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand on 25/7/2010 giving full details, requesting for cancellation of impugned orders, which seems to have fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dtd. 21/2/2006, 20/5/2008 and 21/7/2010 vide Annexure-5, 6 and 7, the petitioners, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have been constrained to challenge the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.