Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 226 (PAT)

Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-01

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents followed by two clarificatory counter affidavits. The Court proceeds to dispose of this application on merit at the stage of admission. 3. The claim of the petitioner is for reguiarisation of services on the sanctioned vacant post of Typist in the Revenue Division at Motihari. The writ application accordingly seeks quashing of Annexure 1 dated 13.4.98 by which the said relief has been denied to him. it would be the case of the petitioner that while persons recommended alongwith the petitioner by Annexure 9 have been regularised the petitioner has been discriminated. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Typist in the Revenue Division, Gandak Project, Motihari on 9.12.87 till 31.12.87 and was again re-appointed oh the post of Casual Typist on daily wages vide an order dated 10.10.88. The Revenue Division of the Bihar Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, constituted a high level committee for reguiarisation of services of casual employees working in the Department since long. This committee after deliberation took a decision on 21.5.92 as appended at Annexure 5. The committee notified the number of persons employed in the Water Resources Department in the Revenue Directorate and the number of vacancies on which reguiarisation could be considered. The committee then fixed a cutoff date of 1.4.92 holding that all such persons who had worked for the previous five financial years and who had not retired and against whom no criminal proceedings were pending, be considered accordingly. This Court finds that this order after deliberations was an order of the State Government issued under the orders of the Governor of the State of Bihar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by Annexure 7 a single post of Clerk-cum-Typist was sanctioned and created in the Revenue Division at Motihari and it was decided in consonance with the aforesaid decision dated 2.5.92 that the same shall be filled up by reguiarisation of employees working in the Department and not by fresh appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by Annexure 7 a single post of Clerk-cum-Typist was sanctioned and created in the Revenue Division at Motihari and it was decided in consonance with the aforesaid decision dated 2.5.92 that the same shall be filled up by reguiarisation of employees working in the Department and not by fresh appointment. In pursuance of the same by Annexure 9 the case of the petitioner was considered specifically for reguiarisation on the post of Typist and the Selection Committee after being satisfied that the petitioner qualified for reguiarisation in terms of the guidelines as laid down by the aforesaid high level government committee decision daied 2.5.92 recommended the case of the petitioner for reguiarisation. This Court observes that no doubt this order dated 14.7.97 recorded in its conclusion that the final orders for regularisation be issued after obtaining government approval. 6. Before such government approval could be issued the same selection committee proceeded to issue Annexure 1 dated 13.4.98. The petitioner was sought to be denied the benefit of regularisation in pursuance of the aforesaid decision by now contending that in pursuance of the general government decision not to regularise persons appointed after 1.4.85, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for regularisation and the recommendation dated 14.7.97 was accordingly cancelled. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision to regularise the petitioner dated 14.7.97 was specific in nature with regard to casual employees of the Revenue Directorate of the Water Resources Department. It was a decision specific in nature as distinct from any general government decision with regard to the cut-off date 1.4.85 which would not be applicable to the petitioner so long as the high level committee decision of the State Government dated 2.5.92 at Annexure 5 remained operative having been issued on behalf of the Government itself. It was submitted that Annexure 5 dated 2.5.92 remains effective as of date and has not been cancelled or set at naught. In the circumstances the order dated 13.4,98 by the Selection Committee was virtually challenging their own recommendation dated 14.7.97. This, learned counsel submitted was clearly impermissible in law. 8. Three counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the circumstances the order dated 13.4,98 by the Selection Committee was virtually challenging their own recommendation dated 14.7.97. This, learned counsel submitted was clearly impermissible in law. 8. Three counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. It emerges clearly from them that the government decision dated 2.5.92 at Annexure 5 in pursuance of which the decision with regard to the regularisation of the services of the petitioner dated 14.7.97 at Annexure 9 came to be issued has not been annulled by the Government. The respondents seek to justify the cancellation of the decision dated 14.7.97 at Annexure 9 in pursuance of reappraisal of the case of the petitioner by the same very concerned committee on a completely different plea that the petitioner was not appointed prior to cut-off date of 1.8.85. 9. This Court is afraid that the respondents cannot be permitted to reopen the case of the petitioner for regularisation on fresh grounds while the government decision dated 2.5.92 remains valid and operative. Administrative discretion would not permit the respondents to resort to arbitrariness by urging fresh grounds to deny the relief to the petitioner even while earlier grounds on the basis of which relief was granted remains valid and existing in law. 10. In the circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition has to be allowed. The respondents cannot be permitted to take shifting stand at their convenience and challenge their own orders. Let mandamus issue directing the respondents to forthwith implement the decision dated 14.7.97 with regard to the petitioner issued in pursuance of the government direction dated 2.5.92 reiterated on 5.1.96. 11. In the circumstances this Court directs the respondents to give effect to the recommendation in respect of the petitioner within a period of five months from the date of receipt or communication of a copy of this order. 12. The writ application accordingly stands allowed with the directions indicated.