Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 11 (PAT)

Dhirendra Mohan Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-04

S.N.JHA

body2001
Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this case relates to appointment on the post of Cine Cameraman in the Information and Public Relation Department of the Government of Bihar. 2. It is said that the post was advertised a number of times but on account of non-availability of suitable candidates appointment could not be made. Shorn of details in this regard, it may be stated that faced with the situation on account of nonavailability of suitable candidates for the post, on 29.9.89 the Bihar Public Service Commission ("Commission" in short) requested the State Govt. to relax the qualification as regards experience. On 22.9.90 the Department informed the Commission that the experience clause in the qualification had been relaxed to the extent that the candidate would be required to possess at least one years experience of work as motion picture cameraman in a Government institute or a reputed film production institute or three years experience as Assistant Cameraman in a Government or reputed film production institute. 3. In the light of the said communication on 28.8.96 the Commission advertised the post mentioning the aforesaid qualification, apart from the academic qualification as already mentioned in the previous advertisement. In the meantime on 28.5.92 the petitioner was appointed as Video Cameraman in the scale of Rs. 2000-3800/-. Later, on 1.6.95 he was appointed as Cine Cameraman in the same scale on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. It is said that though the initial appointment was for six months it was extended and he has remained in the employment throughout. 4. Adverting to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 28.8.96, the petitioner submitted his application in the department which was forwarded to the Commission. It is relevant to mention here that on 14.5.97 decision was taken to specify the institutes, the experience certificate of which could be recognised by the three member committee headed by the Director General of the Information and Public Relation Department. Apart from three Government institutes namely Jamiya Milia Islamia, New Delhi, Film and Television Institute, Bombay and Hyderabad Film Institute, three non-government institutes namely B.C. Roy Institute, Calcutta, R.K. Films Institute, Bombay and A.B.C. Limited, Bombay were identified as reputed private institutes, certificates of which were to be recognised for the purpose of eligibility. Apart from the said private institutes, certificates of other institutes recognised by the State Governments also be accepted. Apart from the said private institutes, certificates of other institutes recognised by the State Governments also be accepted. The said decision thus made distinction between the Government institutes and non-government institutes which was in accordance with the qualification. As regards the non-goverenmnt institutes, apart from the three mentioned, other institutes recognised by the respective State Government were also treated at par. The said decision was duly communicated to the Commission. As circumstances would have it, none of the candidates who had submitted application was found eligible for appointment. On 24.5.97, accordingly, the Commission informed the Department that on scrutiny of the applications submitted by the candidates pursuant to Adv No. 104/ 96, no suitable candidate was available for appointment and therefore steps may be taken for fresh advertisement. 5. In the meantime, decision was taken by the State Govt. to abolish the post of Cine-Cameraman vide letter no. 545 dated 24.8.2000. When the aforesaid stand was taken by the Department in course of hearing of this case earlier the Court wanted to know as to whether the decision to abolish the post was of the State Govt. or had been taken at the officers level. In the affidavit filed on 12.7.2001 sworn by Sri Ganesh Choudhary, Under Secretary, Department of Information and Public Relation, it has been stated that letter no. 545 dated 24.8.2000 has been withdrawn by the State Govt. vide letter no. 404 dated 22.5.2001 meaning thereby that the decision to abolish the post stands withdrawn. It is thus common ground between the parties that the post of Cine Cameraman is very much in existence. 6. Coming to the claim of the petitioner, counsel made a vain attempt to satisfy the Court, on the stregnth of the certificates and testimonials contained in Annexure 29 series, that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Cine Cameraman in terms of the advertisement. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am unable to accept the submission. 7. As indicated above as per the laid down qualification, the candidate was required to possess work experience as motion picture Cameraman or Assistant Cameraman in a Government institute or any of the three private institutes specified by the Committee or recognised by the respective State Governments. The petitioner in this regard relies on the certificates granted by the Notre Dame Academy. The petitioner in this regard relies on the certificates granted by the Notre Dame Academy. He claims to have acquired the qualification from the said Academy. Nothing however has been said, muchless any document has been produced, to show that Notre Dame Academy has been recognised by the State Govt. for the purpose of film making or imparting training in cinematography. The Academy cannot also be said to be an reputed film institute engaged in film production and in that view of the matter I am constrained to hold that the petitioner did not possess the qualification laid down in the advertisement. 8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the post should be allowed to remain vacant. Though the petitioner claims to be working on the post by virtue of ad hoc appointment for a number of years, regular appointment has not been made for want of suitable candidates. Indeed, as indicated above, on 29.9.89 the Commission had requested the Government to relax the qualification. The Government did relax the qualification but even as per the relaxed qualification, candidates are not available. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that a direction should be issued to the State Govt. to further relax the qualification taking into account the unlikelihood of the availability of suitable candidates in the market, so that appointment on the post can be made on regular basis. The Department may also consider fixing suitable age limit so that suitable candidates coming within the prescribed limit may be available. The decision in this regard should be taken within two months of the receipt of a copy of the order. After the decision is so taken, requisition should be sent to the Commission for fresh advertisement. The Commission will thereupon advertise the post and complete the process of recruitment in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and directions the petition is disposed of.