Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1182 (PAT)

Rajeshwar Dayal v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-30

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in sum and substance seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to take steps for appointment on the post of Computer Operator in view of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11761 of 1996 and L.P.A.. No. 522 of 1999. 3. It appears that the petitioner initially was appointed on the post of Computer Operator on 15th April, 1996 in the office of the State Election Commission. During the service tenure of this petitioner as Computer Operator, his appointment was challenged by one Dineshwar Pandey in C.W.J.C. No. 11761 of 1996. The writ application aforesaid was disposed of by this Court after hearing the parties holding appointment of this petitioner, who was respondent no. 11 in that writ application, illegal on the post of Computer Operator vide order, as contained in annexure 14. This Court, however, directed the authorities concerned to take fresh steps for appointment on the said post in accordance with law. The order passed by this Court was challenged in L.P.A. No. 522 of 1999, which was disposed of vide order, as contained in annexure 15 dated 25.11.1999 observing that it goes without saying that while taking steps for fresh appointment, the authorities will proceed to consider the cases in accordance with the set criteria. It further observed that since the appellant and respondent no. 1 were considered earlier for such appointment, therefore, at the time of fresh appointment, if applications are made on their behalf, and they are found overage, the authorities concerned may consider desirability of granting age relaxation. 4. Now a grievance has been made by the petitioner that till date the authorities have not taken any step to fill up the post of Computer Operator in the office of the State Election Commission and respondent no. 7 was directed to work as Computer Operator till the said post is regularly filled up. It is further submitted that since the post of Computer Operator is vacant in the office of the State Election Commission it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to appoint eligible person on the said post in accordance with taw and by not doing so, respondent no. 7 may claim benefit of experience for the post of Computer Operator. 5. It is further submitted that since the post of Computer Operator is vacant in the office of the State Election Commission it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to appoint eligible person on the said post in accordance with taw and by not doing so, respondent no. 7 may claim benefit of experience for the post of Computer Operator. 5. Different sets of counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, State Election Commission and respondent no. 7. 6. The stand of the State Election Commission is that it is not the appointing authority and in view of section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act"), the appointing authority would be the State of Bihar. 7. On the contrary, the stand of the State of Bihar is that appointment could have been made by the State Election Commission itself in view of the query made. 8. At the same time, respondent no. 7 with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that respondent no. 7 has temporarily been asked to work as Computer Operator and in no case, he is connected with the affairs of the petitioner nor the State Election Commission. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that after issuance of direction of this Court, as contained in annexures 14 and 15, correspondences were made in between the State Election Commission and the State authorities with regard to modality of the procedures to be adopted for appointment of Computer Operator, but till date the matter has not been resolved as to who would be the appointing authority and thus, the post has still remained vacant. 10. A situation in case falls vacant in the State Office, that is required to be filled up in accordance with law after due advertisement. 11. It is not in dispute that the post of Computer Operator is vacant in the office of the State Election Commission since 1999. 12. Considering these aspects of the matter, in my opinion, it was high time for the authority concerned to fill up the post of Computer Operator from amongst the eligible persons. 13. 11. It is not in dispute that the post of Computer Operator is vacant in the office of the State Election Commission since 1999. 12. Considering these aspects of the matter, in my opinion, it was high time for the authority concerned to fill up the post of Computer Operator from amongst the eligible persons. 13. Sub-section (3) of section 136 of the Act deals with the affairs of the State Election Commission and it contemplates that the Government shall, when so requested, by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff, as may be necessary, for the discharge of functions conferred on the State Election Commission under this Act. 14. In view of sub-section (3) of section 136 of the Act, it is manifest that the State Government shall make available sufficient numbers of staff, as may be required by the State Election Commission for discharge of its function. 15. Obviously, therefore, the State of Bihar would be appointing authority of Computer Operator. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the State respondent authorities are directed to advertise the post of Computer Operator and make appointment in accordance with law. This process, however, should be completed by the State authorities within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of. 18. Before I part with this order, it is observed that I have not expressed any opinion with regard to eligibility of the petitioner or respondent no. 7 and it will be open for the State authorities to make appointment in light of the observations made by this Court earlier in annexures 14 and 15, respectively.