Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 183 (PAT)

Atia Begum v. State Of Bihar

2003-02-14

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioner has substantially prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to implement the decision taken in meeting held on 1-12-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar. A further prayer has also been made to promote the petitioner from Class III to Class II post as per recommendation madeon 1-12-1995. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is serving under K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, on Class III post and as per the decision taken in the meeting dated 1-12-1995 virtually it was virtually it was resolved to notify the post held by the petitioner, as one of the posts of Subordinate Education Service, higher category and, therefore, the authorities could have notified the post and the petitioner could have been promoted to Class II post. It is further submitted that several reminders were sent to the State Government by the Director of K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute to implement decision dated 1-12-1995, but till date the State Government has not issued any notification and, thus, the petitioner has been deprived of the promotional avenues. 4. A counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State duly sworn by the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar. In the counter-affidavit precisely it is stated, inter alia, that in the advertisement issued by the Director, Higher Education, for filling up the vacancies of persian Scribe the post was not mentioned as belonging to the Subordinate Education Service and these are several similarly situated posts in K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute and similarly situated Institutes, which do not belong to Subordinate Education Service and the petitioner, therefore, cannot call upon the State of declare the post in the category of Subordinate Education Service as a matter of right. 5. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Department has no knowledge of any decision taken in the meeting dated 1-12-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder someof the technical posts were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in any of the Government Institutes in Subordinate Education Service. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Department has no knowledge of any decision taken in the meeting dated 1-12-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder someof the technical posts were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in any of the Government Institutes in Subordinate Education Service. It is further stated that a routine meeting of the Directors of all the Research Institutes under the Chairmanship of the Director of Higher Education was held on 1-12-1995 for discussion on various issues relating to the Institutes. It is also stated that the decision, if any, taken on 1-12-1995 declaring some technical posts in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in the Research Institutes under the Department of Higher Education in the category of Subordinate Education Service would not be binding upon the State Government and the Director, Higher Education, was not the competent authority to accord approval in including the technical posts of the Institutes in the category of Subordinate Education Service. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties at length. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears to me that some resolution was passed by the Directors of the Institutes under the Chairmanship of the Director, Higher Education, in the meeting on 1-12-1995. It further appears that to include a particular post in the category of Subordinate Education Service the matter is required to be examined by the Personnel Department and the Finance Department and concurrence of the Minister concerned is required to be obtained. The issue involved in this writ application pertains to payment of scale and necessarily, therefore, the concurrence of the Finance Department was required. No averment has been made in the writ application that the decision taken by the Institute in the meeting on 1-12-1995 was even formally approved by the State Government and necessary concurrence of the Finance Department was obtained. 7. From the pleadings of the respondents, as said in the counter-affidavit, it appears that the Department of Higher Education is not acknowledging such decisions taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 1-12-1995. 8. 7. From the pleadings of the respondents, as said in the counter-affidavit, it appears that the Department of Higher Education is not acknowledging such decisions taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 1-12-1995. 8. Even assuming that any resolution was passed in the meeting acted 1-12-1995 to include the technical posts of the Institutes under the Subordinate Education Service, the same would not be binding on the State Government unless the legal formalities are completed, as noticed above. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any positive direction to give effect to this resolution taken in the meeting dated 1-12-1995, if any. 10. However, in the fitness of things, it would be desirable to direct the State authorities to examine the issues raised in this application and take a decision in accordance with law. 11. With this direction/observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed of.