Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 872 (PAT)

Daya Kant Lal Das v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-22

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned S.C. IX for the respondents. 2. The order as contained in annexure-3 issued vide memo no. 879 dated 20.5.1993 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioners on Class 111 Post by way of promotion, has been cancelled and they have been reverted to their substantive Class IV post. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioners since were working on regular basis on Class IV post, they were considered for appointment by way of promotion to Class III post by virtue of the resolution of the State Government. Their cases were considered by the Establishment Committee and pursuant to its decision dated 25.6.1987, petitioners were allowed to sit in a limited examination where they passed the examination and thereafter they were appointed on Class lll post vide notification as contained in annexure-1 dated 18.1.1988. It is further contended that their appointment was strictly made in accordance with the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, as contained in annexure-2 and, thus, they had acquired substantive right on Class lll post. It is further submitted that the authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel their appointments on Class III post and that also without affording an opportunity to them. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. 9, on the contrary, submitted that petitioners appointment was not found to be in consonance with the earlier circular of the State Government and the well-known procedures of law and, therefore, their appointment on Class III posts was cancelled. However, learned counsel for the State submitted that before passing of the order impugned, as contained in annexure-3, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioners as they had no right to the post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by virtue of the interim order dated 2.7.1993 passed by this Court the petitioners are continuing on Class III post. 6. From annexure-1 it appears that the Establishment Committee considered the case of the petitioners and pursuant to its resolution, a limited examination was held where the petitioners were allowed to appear and on account of the result of the examination they were found to be successful and they were appointed on Class III post by virtue of promotion as per the resolution of the State Government. 7. 7. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in annexure-3 to show as to how the appointment of the petitioners was de hors the rules or the well-known procedures for appointment, nor any cogent reason has been disclosed in the counter affidavit supporting the order impugned as contained in annxure-3. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are continuing on Class III post since 18.1.1988. It is also the admitted position that the petitioners were never given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order impugned. 9. The action of the State Authorities, in this view of the matter, must be held to be violative of the principles of natural justice and wholly without jurisdiction. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned dated 20.5.1993 as contained in annexure-3, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is set aside. 11. No costs.