Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 17 (PAT)

Suresh Prasad Rai v. Patna Municipal Corpn.

2008-01-07

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2008
Judgment Mihir kumar Jha, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the two petitioners have assailed the order, dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder twelve Pipeline Khalashi were promoted on the post of Pipeline Mistry under a decision of Patna Water Board. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the list of these twelve persons, two of them, namely, Phoolena Thakur and Ram Charitar Yadav being admittedly junior to them have been promoted by overlooking them. 2. Counsel for the petitioners, in this context, has drawn my attention towards the unique procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer of the Patna Water Board, who is view of a decision of the Patna Water Board, dated 30.11.2006 had directed all the concerned Controlling Engineers/Inspectors by his letter, dated 16.12.2006 to submit a report regarding the character and work efficiency of as many as sixteen senior most Pipeline Khalashi including the two petitioners and the respondents 5 & 6. Counsel has further submitted that on the basis of the report purportedly submitted in view of the aforementioned written direction of the Chief Engineer of the Patna Water Board, dated 16.12.2006 the concerned Inspectors/Junior Engineer had submitted a report on 20.12.2006 where it was stated that both these petitioner as well as one Lala Prasad were neither conversant with the job of the Mistry nor had the required physical fitness for the post of the Mistry. Counsel for the petitioners infact to the said stand with regard to the unique procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer, Patna Water Board has also submitted that the aforementioned Lala Prasad, Khalashi who was also found to be not conversant with the job of the Mistry and also not having physically fitness alike these two petitioners had, however, been promoted on 02.01.2008 in view of a subsequent decision taken on 29.12.2007 by the Standing Committee of the Patna Water Board. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, has tried to impress before the Court that there is no transparent and/or any laid down policy of promotion and such promotion is being given by way of favour and/or largess without adopting and/or following any rules. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners. 3. Consideration of promotion of an employee of the Patna Water Board has to be definitely made in an objective manner. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners. 3. Consideration of promotion of an employee of the Patna Water Board has to be definitely made in an objective manner. In the present case, the manner in which promotion has been given on the post of Pipeline Mistry by the Patna Water Board does not inspire confidence in the entire procedure adopted by the authorities. It has to be kept in mind that if no report of performance of Khalashi on annual basis or periodical basis with regard to the work efficiency or physical fitness is being recorded and preserved, a sudden preparation of such a report within 24 hours and the same being made the only basis/mode of consideration for promotion can never be held to be a fair and correct procedure. The Authorities of the Patna Water Board including the Chief Engineer ought to have looked into the service records of all the employees and at the same time should have also examined the physical fitness and/or the knowledge in place of relying a report of Junior Engineer/Pipeline Inspector. There is infact no explanation as to why Lala Prasad who was also earlier held to be disqualified along with the petitioners became eligible for promotion and was also given promotion. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the Chief Engineer, Patna Water Board to re-examine the whole process of promotion on the post of Pipeline Mistry and take a decision with regard to these petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. 5. The Chief Engineer, Patna Water Board will be under obligation to look into the records of service of the petitioners and would also personally interview the two petitioners and in case he again comes to the same conclusion that the petitioners were/are not eligible for promotion, he will pass a reasoned order for denying such promotion to them. Before parting with, this Court also feels necessity to observe that it would be in the fitness of things that a promotion policy/guideline for the post from Khalashi to Mistry is laid down by the Patna Water Board so that every person eligible for such promotion can at least become satisfied that his case was properly considered. Before parting with, this Court also feels necessity to observe that it would be in the fitness of things that a promotion policy/guideline for the post from Khalashi to Mistry is laid down by the Patna Water Board so that every person eligible for such promotion can at least become satisfied that his case was properly considered. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of.