Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1146 (PAT)

Ganesh Lal v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-28

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the memo dated 22-6-2002 (Annexure-5) whereby Respondent Nos. 5 to 19 who were working as Accountant in the Bihar State Electricity Board have been allowed to lookafter the work of Accounts Officer as a purely ad-hoc arrangement and posted at various places. Further prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Accounts Officer. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rising to the present application, are that the petitioner is working as Accountant in the Bihar State Electricity Board. By order dated 22-6-2002, respondent Nos. 5 to 19 have been allowed to lookafter the work of Accounts Officer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although he is senior to those persons, they have been allowed to function as Accounts Officer ignoring his seniority. 3. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, principle of seniority-cum-merit has to be followed and petitioner being senior to respondent Nos. 5 to 19 who have been asked to look after the work of Accounts Officer, the action of the respondents is discriminatory. He points out that even while asking the Accountants to lookafter the work of Accounts Officer, seniority has to be taken into account. In this connection, Shri Verma has drawn my attention to letter dated 26-3-2001 (Annexure-8). 4. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing for the respondents-Board submits that the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer is governed by Rule known as Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Lekha Sewa Samvarg Niyamawali, 1991 and Rule 10 thereof clearly provides that a person has to pass the Lekha Pravin Pariksha to make him eligible for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. He points out that the petitioner having not passed the said examination, is not eligible for being promoted to the post of Accounts Officer. Accordingly, while ordering respondent Nos. 5 to 19 to lookafter the work of the Accounts Officer, petitioner was not given that benefit. 5. Mr. Verma concedes that the petitioner has not passed the said examination but he refers to the statement made in paragraph-11 of the writ application and points out that two persons who had not passed the Lekha Pravin Pariksha, has also been allowed to lookafter the work of Accounts Officer. 5. Mr. Verma concedes that the petitioner has not passed the said examination but he refers to the statement made in paragraph-11 of the writ application and points out that two persons who had not passed the Lekha Pravin Pariksha, has also been allowed to lookafter the work of Accounts Officer. Details thereof have not been furnished by the petitioner and from that it cannot be deciphered as to the circumstances under which those people, if at all, were asked to perform the work of Accounts Officer. They might have been allowed to function as Accounts Officer in addition to their own duty as was done in the case of the petitioner, which would be evident from letter dated 21-5-2001 (Annexure-2), 14-6-2001 and 24-11-2001. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the persons who have not passed the Lekha Pravin Pariksha, have been allowed to function as the Accounts Officer independently. 6. Even if I assume in favour of the petitioner that some persons were allowed to do so, that itself, shall not entitle the petitioner to function as the Accounts Officer. Rule 10 of the Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Lekha Sewa Samwarg Niyamawali, 1991, as referred to above, provides that for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, an Accountant has to pass the Lekha Pravin Pariksha, Petitioner admittedly had not passed the said examination. Petitioner being not eligible in terms of the rule, cannot ask for a mandamus for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer and cannot make a grievance, if other persons who has passed the examination have been asked to function as Accounts Officer by the impugned order. In this connection, one may refer to Regulation 85 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Services Regulation which in no uncertain terms has provided that no employee of the Board shall have right of promotion to a post if he -has failed to clear the departmental or proficiency examination which is one of the eligibility criteria for promotion. As stated earlier, the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer in terms of the rule by which he is governed and as such, prayer made by the petitioner seeking a mandamus for promotion is absolutely misconceived. 7. Mr. As stated earlier, the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer in terms of the rule by which he is governed and as such, prayer made by the petitioner seeking a mandamus for promotion is absolutely misconceived. 7. Mr. Verma then contends that the petitioner is a member of the reserved category and while promoting other persons, the reservation rule was not followed. I am not inclined to go into this submission of Mr. Verma on the ground that the petitioner being not eligible, he cannot claim promotion to the post of Accounts Officer even if he belongs to a reserved category. It has not brought to my notice that the eligibility criteria for the persons belonging to the reserved category has been relaxed and petitioner fulfills that criteria. 8. Mr. Verma may be right when he points that while making promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, seniority has to be considered but before doing so, one has to see that the person claiming promotion is eligible or not in terms of the Rule. Petitioner being not eligible for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer in terms of the Rule, his prayer to quash the impugned order is absolutely misconceived. 9. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.