Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 987 (PAT)

Ramesh Jha v. State Of Bihar

2005-11-14

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. As in all these four writ petitions, the question involved is common, with consent of parties, they have been heard together for disposal by this common order. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders of their reversion from Class III to Class IV posts. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that initially all these petitioners were working in the work-charged establishment. In the case of petitioner Ramesh Jha, learned counsel appearing for the said petitioner relying upon Annexure 5 submits that Shri Jha was appointed as Compiler Clerk, which is a Class III post. In the other three writ petitions, the appointment of the petitioners in the work-charged establishment was against Class IV posts. Later, the State Government, vide letter no. 941 dated 19.2.1981 (Annexure A) read with letter no. 6073 dated 29.6.1981 (Annexure B) decided to regularise such work charge employees on regular post after considering their qualification and seniority and accordingly all the petitioners were regularised/ appointed in Class III vide different orders in the year 1981 itself except petitioner Chandra Gupta Singh, who was initially regularised in Class IV and later appointed in Class III as per his seniority as claimed by him. 4. The State Government, vide another letter dated 20.4.1983 (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) while clarifying the earlier policy decision directed all the Chief Engineers of the then Irrigation Department that all such regularisation should be done on grade to grade basis i.e., those who are working in Class IV in the work-charged establishment should be regularised in Class IV and those who are working in Class III should be regularised in Class III. However, in the said letter, no decision with respect to those who were already regularised earlier was taken/communicated. Later, vide impugned orders, the regularisation of the petitioners in Class III was annulled and they were reverted back in Class IV, validity of which order has been assailed in a/I the writ petitions. 5. In all the four writ petitions, the respondents-State and its authorities have filed counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the State while defending the impugned orders contended that since a/I these petitioners were initially working in Class IV in the work-charged establishment, their regularisation /appointment in Class III was illegal and bad in view of the Government decision dated 20.4.1983, contained in Annexure C. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the State while defending the impugned orders contended that since a/I these petitioners were initially working in Class IV in the work-charged establishment, their regularisation /appointment in Class III was illegal and bad in view of the Government decision dated 20.4.1983, contained in Annexure C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Annexure C is not relevant insofar as the present petitioners are concerned because they were already appointed as per the policy of the Government on the basis of requisite qualification and seniority before Annexure C was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in any view of the matter, the impugned orders of reversion after lapse of over 20 years are bad in law and against the equity and all canons of justice. In support of this, Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in C.W.J.C. Nos. 4301 and 4303 of 2004 relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Rajak V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1998(1) PLJR 871. He submitted that the said decision was also affirmed in L.P.A. and in the Supreme Court in S.L.R preferred by the State. 8. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed the said fact. However, according to the learned counsel for the State, the Division Bench while hearing L.P.A. preferred by the State only took into consideration the fact that Suresh Kumar Rajak was not given notice before reverting him and as such, held that-the rules of natural justice was violated and the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P filed against the said order by the State. As such, he contended that the Division Bench has neither considered the question of equity nor the principle as to from what date Annexure C shall be effective. However, according to him, there is nothing wrong in passing of the impugned orders as, according to the decision contained in Annexure C, the appointments were to be made on grade to grade basis, which was not followed in all the present cases. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of Ramesh Jha placed reliance on the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Md. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of Ramesh Jha placed reliance on the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Md. Nizamuddin & another V/s. The State of Bihar & Others (L.P.A. No. 809 of 2003) [reported in 2003(4) PLJR 494 ] in which the Division Bench while considering the fact that the question of seniority was not considered while giving appointment to the appellants in the said case, namely, Md. Nizamuddin and another, has upheld the order of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the said appellants by dismissing the appeal preferred by them. 10. Learned counsel for the State, however, has not been able to show that in the present cases the stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that in the case of the petitioners also the seniority was not followed while regularising them/giving appointment in Class III. It is also not pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners were not qualified for regularisation/getting appointment in Class III. 11. Bare perusal of the policy decisions, contained in Annexures A and B, would show that the only requirement contained therein for regularisation on the post was seniority and eligibility. In fact, there is provision in paragraph 4 of the said Government decision, contained in Annexure B, for giving promotion in case of vacancy. However, it will be, in my opinion, against the equity and all canons of justice to revert/downgrade these petitioners from Class III to Class IV after lapse of long period of over 20 years. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders are bad and are fit to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of rever-sion/downgradation of respective petitioners are hereby quashed.