Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 379 (JHR)

Amitabh Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-04-18

M.Y.EQBAL

body2006
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 22.8.2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Arts, Culture and Sports Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby respondent No. 4 has been appointed on deputation on the post of Deputy Director, Archaeology department of Arts, Culture and Sports, Government of Jharkhand for a period of one year and further for a direction upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the said post. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a member of scheduled caste and is M.A. in Ancient Indian History and Archaeology. In 1988 he was appointed on the post of Senior Technical Assistant on regular basis and in 1997 he was promoted to the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer (Archaeology) by the State Government and was posted at Patna. Presently the petitioner is posted on the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer, Archaeology, Ranchi. Petitioners further case is that after amendment of Bihar Education Services Class I and II Appointment. Rules, 1973, the Archaeology and Museum Directorate merged with the Bihar Education Service Class I and Class II and the rules were modified for time bound promotion in Bihar Education Service. The post of Excavation and Exploration Officer of Archaeology and Museum Directorate have been accepted to be class II post in the Bihar Education Service. According to the petitioner, he completed six years in class II service and became eligible for promotion in the said Education Service, Class I. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation for promotion on the post of Deputy Director as he is the senior most officer in the Archaeology department and fulfills all the criterias and eligibility for the post. His grievance is that In spite of that respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Arts, Culture and Sports department, received a direct application from respondent No. 4 and appointed him on deputation on the post of Deputy Director granting him the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there are two equivalent posts of Deputy Director in the same pay scale under Directorate, Archaelogy (headquarters) and the said posts were lying vacant after creation of the State of Jharkhand. The post of Regional Deputy Director, Archaeology also fell vacant on 30.9.2004. 10,000-15,200/-. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there are two equivalent posts of Deputy Director in the same pay scale under Directorate, Archaelogy (headquarters) and the said posts were lying vacant after creation of the State of Jharkhand. The post of Regional Deputy Director, Archaeology also fell vacant on 30.9.2004. Keeping in view the importance of conservation and development of historical and cultural heritage of this State, it was deeply felt that the service of a suitable person be taken on deputation from other source. Accordingly, a selection committee under the chairpersonship of Development Commissioner was constituted which interviewed the applicants and recommended respondent No. 4 for appointment on deputation. It is contended that the cadre of Bihar Education Service in the department of Archaeology is yet to be finally divided. Page 884 In absence of final cadre division regular promotion could not be given. It is further stated that there is another vacant post of Regional Deputy Director available in the department to which promotion of the petitioner can be given if he is finally allocated Jharkhand cadre. 4. Mr. Anwar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner brought to my notice some documents which have been annexed as annexures 7,9,10,11 and 15 to the writ application and submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, without following the rules and procedures, hastily appointed respondent No. 4 on deputation. 5. Although it is stated in para 16 of the counter affidavit that for filling up the post of Deputy Director on deputation a requisition letter was issued to the Director General, A.S.I., New Delhi, Heads of the department of History, Ranchi University, Binoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka, Patna University, Magadh University and other Universities on 8.12.2004 but from perusal of annexure 7 it appears that even before the respondents issued requisition a direct application was submitted by respondent No. 4 on 19.8.2004. It is really surprising that the respondents issued appointment letter on 22.8.2005 (annexure 9) and on the same day appointment letter was received by respondent No. 4(annexure 10). Not only that on the same very date i.e. on 22.8.2005 a notification was issued to that effect and a demi official letter was sent to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division for immediately relieving respondent No. 4. Not only that on the same very date i.e. on 22.8.2005 a notification was issued to that effect and a demi official letter was sent to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division for immediately relieving respondent No. 4. Another letter was also issued on the same very day i.e. on 22.8.2005 by the Secretary to the Commissioner requesting for immediate joining of respondent No. 4. 6. From perusal of annexure A which is said to be the minutes of the Selection Committee, it appears that only two candidates were alleged to have been interviewed and respondent No. 4 was selected: There is nothing in the minutes about issuance of requisition or advertisement or general notification for filling up the post of Deputy Director on deputation. The very fact that all the formalities were completed in one day i.e. on 22.8.2005, shows the apparent favoritism to respondent No. 4 when, according to the respondents themselves, the selection was made on 27.1.2005. 7. As noticed above, before the respondents took a decision to fill up the post on deputation respondent No. 4 made an application for his appointment on deputation. Although he was posted at Bhagalpur appointment letter was issued to him on 22.8.2005 which was received by him on the same very day. These facts and circumstances, prima facie, show that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have committed serious illegality in filling up the post of Deputy Director in such a way which casts a serious cloud on its genuinity. This Court, therefore, cannot approve the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the same suffers from serious arbitrariness and favourtism. I have, therefore, no option but to quash the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Deputy Director, Archeaology. 8. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and impugned notification dated 22.8.2005 is quashed. The respondents are directed to fill up the two posts of Deputy Director in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.