Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1274 (PAT)

Md. Abu Tahir Quddusi v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-03

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application was originally filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Memo dated 23rd August, 2002 (Annexure-8), whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for considering his case for appointment to the post of District Transport Officer (Junior) has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents-State and its functionaries to consider his case for appointment to the post of District Transport Officer (Junior). 2. During the pendency of the writ application persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion and that necessitated filing of a supplementary affidavit. In this, petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of promotion with effect from the date on which junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits. This also necessitated filing of an interlocutory application (IA No. 4609 of 2006) praying to implead juniors who have been promoted to the said post and by order dated 22.1.2007 they have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 3. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as clerk in the office of District Transport Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. The Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the department of Transport by communication dated 27.5.1999 (Annexurel) asked various officers for nominating the names of persons for appointment to the post of District Transport Officer (Junior) in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500/- to 10,500/-. According to the said communication the applications were to be forwarded by the Controlling Officers where the candidates are posted by 30th June, 1999 alongwith their recommendation and the said communication emphasised that application received after the due date shall not be considered, so also such applications which are forwarded directly. 4. It is the stand of the petitioner that District Transport Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur where he was posted nominated his name and sent the records by letter dated 21.6.1999. However when the petitioner came to know that his candidature was not forwarded to the Bihar Public Service Commission he sent representation, which did not yield any result. Ultimately he filed a writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No.7369 of 2002 (Md. Abu Tahir Quddusi Vs. However when the petitioner came to know that his candidature was not forwarded to the Bihar Public Service Commission he sent representation, which did not yield any result. Ultimately he filed a writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No.7369 of 2002 (Md. Abu Tahir Quddusi Vs. State of Bihar). This Court by order dated 12.7.2002 directed the authority to dispose of the representation. By reasons of the impugned order the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the nomination of the petitioner by the Controlling Officer as contained in its letter dated 21-6-1999 was received on 14th July, 1999 i.e. after the last date of receipt of the application. 5. Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that his Controlling Officer had forwarded the candidature of the petitioner by letter dated 21.6.1999 which was received in the Transport department on 14.7.1999 i.e. after the last date fixed for receipt of the application. He submits that petitioner had no control over that and, as such, he cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapses on part of the functionaries of the State. 6. No body appears on behalf of the State. Bihar Public Service Commission is represented by its Counsel. Despite Service of notice on respondent nos. 5 to 7 no body has chosen to appear on their behalf. 7. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Kabir that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapses on part of the functionary of the State and in fact I was inclined to direct the respondent to consider his case for appointment to the post of District Transport Officer (Junior), when the next vacancy falls. However, Mr. Kabir pointed out that the petitioner has already superannuated from service. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. 8. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.