Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 812 (PAT)

Shatrughan Sharan Das v. State Of Bihar

2003-08-05

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Bihar Intermediate Education Council issued advertisement published in the daily Newspaper Aaj in its issue dated 7.8.1995 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Stenographers and 30 posts of Typists besides other posts. According to the advertisement, appointment was to be made, after the sanction of the posts by the State Government. Petitioners, in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, offered their candidature. The Bihar State Intermediate Education Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council, held written test and interview for preparing a panel for appointment and in fact, a panel was prepared but no appointment was made. Petitioners who had offered their candidature for the post of Stenographers and Typists, filed C.W.J.C. No. 3212 of 2001 (Shatrughan Sharan Das and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment to the posts of Stenographers and Typists. A learned Single Judge of this court, by order dated 18.7.2001 (Annexure- 2), allowed the writ application with the following direction : "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent- Council and its officials are directed to complete the process of appointment for the aforesaid vacant posts of Typist and Stenographer, on the basis of panel/select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement contained in Annexure-1. Such exercise should be completed expeditiously and without any further delay, preferably within two months." While doing so, this court observed as follows : The vacancies in the post of Stenographers has not been disputed and from the discussions made above it is found that there are vacancies not less than 30 even in the sanctioned post of Typist." 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Council preferred L.P.A. No. 892 of 2001 (Bihar Intermediate Education Council and another V/s. Shatrughan Sharan Das & Ors.). A Division Bench of this court, by order dated 29.1.2002 (Annexure-3), after observing that even in a case in which vacancies are notified persons whose name find place in the merit list do not acquire a indefeasible right of appointment, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of this court, by order dated 29.1.2002 (Annexure-3), after observing that even in a case in which vacancies are notified persons whose name find place in the merit list do not acquire a indefeasible right of appointment, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. While doing so, it has further observed as follows : "The Council has not brought before the court any material to show that actually there is no need of the Council to make further appointment at the present. This matter has to be considered by the Council and then a final decision has to be taken as to whether the existing vacancies of Typist and Stenographer have to be filled up or not." 3. Asserting that the Council needs to appoint Typist and Stenographers, petitioners have preferred this application and pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Council to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to ten posts of stenographers and 30 posts of Typists. 4. Petitioners have averred that a large number of persons have been appointed in the Council on daily wages and although by communication dated 2.12.2002 (Annexure-4) of the State Government, the Council was directed to cancel such illegal appointments and to make appointment on the duly sanctioned posts, still petitioners whose names figure in the merit list, have not been appointed, petitioners have further averred that for the budget of 2002- 2003, expenditure is shown against the created sanctioned post of Typist and stenographers but, in fact, no person is working against those posts. Petitioners have also averred that in one hand, they are not being appointed although their names find place in the merit list but one Gopal Prasad whose name also finds place in the merit list, has been appointed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the Council and its Secretary and in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 10, their stand is that after the reorganisation of the State resulting into creation of the State of Jharkhand the work-load of the Council has substantially reduced. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the Council and its Secretary and in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 10, their stand is that after the reorganisation of the State resulting into creation of the State of Jharkhand the work-load of the Council has substantially reduced. It has been further averred that the State of Jharkhand has constituted the Council for holding intermediate examination of the students of the State of Jharkhand and two years earlier, the Council had computerised its functioning, which has considerably reduced the man power need particularly the Stenographers and Typist. As regards the grievance of the petitioners, in regard to the appointment of Gopal Prasad as Stenographer, it has been stated that as there was no permanent Stenographer in the office of the Council, decision to appoint one Stenographer was taken and Gopal Prasad whose name finds place at serial no one of the panel was appointed, who was working for the last seven years on ad hoc basis. 6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners laboured hard to persuade me to hold that the posts of Stenographers and Typists have been sanctioned. It is relevant here to state that the learned Single Judge had clearly observed that the vacancy on the post of stenographer has not been disputed and there are vacancies not less than 30, even on the sanctioned post of Typists. The Division Bench had also held that at the time of advertisement ten posts of Stenographers and 30 posts of Typists were vacant. In that view of the matter, there is no difficulty in accepting the submission of Shri Kanth that sanctioned posts of Stenographers and Typists do exist. 7. Shri Kanth then submits that the Council has need of Stenographers and Typists and although in the counter affidavit, the Council has stated that it has no need but no material has been placed on record to show that the plea of the Council is bonafide. 8. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Kanth. Whether the particular employer needs to make appointment or not is primarily its function and judicial review of such decision is not called for; unless and until it is found that the said plea has been projected for some oblique purpose. 8. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Kanth. Whether the particular employer needs to make appointment or not is primarily its function and judicial review of such decision is not called for; unless and until it is found that the said plea has been projected for some oblique purpose. Undisputedly, when the advertisement for appointment was made, reorganization of the State into the Bihar and Jharkhand had not taken place and territory which formed part of the erstwhile State of Bihar, now forms part of another State, namely, the State of Jharkhand. The Council which used to hold Intermediate examination of the Institutions falling in the State of Jharkhand is not being held by it, but is being held by the Council created by the State of Jharkhand. Certainly, this must have reduced the work-load of the Council. Further, it is common knowledge that computerisation reduces the requirement of the man-power. The Council has averred that it had computerised its functioning which fact has not been disputed and on this count also, the requirement must have been reduced. Thus, the plea of the Council that it has no need to make further appointment of Stenographers and Typists, cannot be said to be without any justification and in my opinion, the said decision cannot be upset by this court in exercise of its power of judicial review. 9. Shri Kanth then submits that if there is no need, the Council ought not have appointed Gopal Prasad as Stenographer. Appointment of one person will not mean that the Council needs to appoint other persons also. The Council has clearly stated in the counter affidavit that the posts of regular Stenographer was vacant and said Gopal Prasad who has been appointed, was placed at no. 1 of the panel and hence, appointed on regular basis. In my opinion, appointment of one person who is at serial no. 1, certainly shall not entitle the petitioners to be appointed to the post of Stenographers and Typists in the face of the plea of the respondents that they do not need to fill up the posts. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.