Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 310 (JHR)

Bipin Bihari Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-04-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification No. 1925/M dated 26.10.09 issued by the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the Respondent No. 6 has been given promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Mines w.e.f. 27.3.1997 retrospectively. 2. The short point raised in this case is that since the Respondent No. 6 is working as Additional Director, Mines under the Government of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar has no territorial or administrative jurisdiction to pass any order regarding his promotion. The impugned order passed by the State of Bihar is, thus, wholly without jurisdiction. 3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that after reorganization of the State of Bihar and creation of the State of Jharkhand, the two States have become absolutely independent States and as such the State of Bihar / Government of Bihar has no administrative control over any of the Government employees of the State of Jharkhand. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2001(3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr), Lakshman Prasad v. Bihar State Housing Board and Ors. 2009 (2) JCR 278 (Jhr) and Shiv Nath Prasad v. Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 80 . 4. Learned J.C to A.G appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has not controverted the said legal position. 5. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar as also learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, on the other hand, supported the impugned notification. 6. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, submitted that the Petitioner's promotion was due since long and under the provisions of Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned order by the authority of the State of Bihar. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the following decisions: (i) J.K Vasavada and Ors. v. Chandrakanta Chimanlal Bhavsar and Anr. AIR 1975 SC 2089 (ii) Nand Kumar Ram and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2006 (2) JCR 65 (Jhr) (iii) Sanjeev Kumar Mandal v. State of Jharkhand W.P. (S) No. 3287/2005 and (iv) T.R. Kapur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 415 . 7. v. Chandrakanta Chimanlal Bhavsar and Anr. AIR 1975 SC 2089 (ii) Nand Kumar Ram and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2006 (2) JCR 65 (Jhr) (iii) Sanjeev Kumar Mandal v. State of Jharkhand W.P. (S) No. 3287/2005 and (iv) T.R. Kapur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 415 . 7. On going through the said decisions referred to and relied on by learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, I find that the said decisions have been rendered on entirely different facts and circumstances and the same are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 8. Having heard learned Counsel, I find substance in the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 6 at the relevant time was holding the post of Additional Director, Mines under the State of Jharkhand and as such at the relevant date, the State of Bihar had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding his promotion with retrospective effect. Reference may be made to the decisions rendered in Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) and Lakshman Prasad v. Bihar State Housing Board and Ors. 2009 (2) JCR 278 (Jhr). 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.10.09 is unsustainable and is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.