Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 176 (PAT)

Upendra Sharma v. State of Bihar

2012-01-30

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2012
JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) Shivaji Pandey, J - When the case was called out on 27th January 2012, none from the side of petitioner was present, although counsel for the State and the Commission were present to represent their respective clients. 2. Even to-day no one is present for the petitioner to press this petition. However, counsel for the State and the Commission are present. 3. In this case, petitioner has claimed that he should be treated in continuous service of the State Government as Assistant Engineer with effect from 27th June 1987 which has wrongly been rejected and has also claimed that he should be treated as Assistant Engineer in the Department of Road Construction Department, in place or which he was allotted the Irrigation Department. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition under the National Rural Employment Programme and was placed in the Road and Building Department. The letter of appointment was issued, awaiting the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Later on the Public Service Commission recommended the name of petitioner along with other candidates and the petitioner was allotted the Irrigation Department. The petitioner was appointed to that post only subject to the result of the writ petition vide CWJC No. 839 of 1987. Claim of the petitioner is that he was wrongly been allotted Irrigation Department, as he had worked in the Road Construction Department and, as such, he ought to have been allotted the aforesaid department and the period spent in the Road Construction Department be also taken into account. It will be relevant to mention here that vide Annexure-1, petitioner was given ad hoc appointment awaiting the recommendation of the Commission. It will be relevant to mention that the Road Construction Department was nodal Department and, as such, all the vacancies of Bihar Engineering Service, Class-II were on requisition sent by the said Department on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate, petitioner was allotted the Irrigation Department. The letter of appointment has been issued in the year 1988 and he has joined the service, it appears, without any delay and later on he has raised the dispute about his allotment. 5. The letter of appointment has been issued in the year 1988 and he has joined the service, it appears, without any delay and later on he has raised the dispute about his allotment. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of Commission and the State that at the earliest, the petitioner was given the ad hoc appointment and it cannot be the basis of his seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment. The seniority of the petitioner will be counted only from the date the petitioner was regularly appointed on the recommendation of the Commission. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the point raised by the State cannot be said to be without any basis. 7. This writ petition is dismissed as one being devoid of merit and even on account of delay.