Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 878 (PAT)

Mohammad Ashfaque Ansari v. State of Bihar

2012-06-27

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER This Appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 14th May 2012 made by the learned single Judge pending CWJC No. 3571 of 2011. 2. The facts leading to the present litigation is very peculiar. The appellant, after competing in the 45th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”), was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2004. After undergoing training and rendering six years’ service and having been confirmed, his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police was questioned because the respondent no. 9 raised objection in respect of his position on the merit list. It was the claim of the respondent no. 9 that he should have been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Bihar Police Service instead erroneously he was shown below the appellant. The respondent no. 9 thus lost opportunity of being appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police and instead was offered employment in the Bihar Education Service which he did accept. 3. After examining his objection, the Commission found that there was some mistake in computing the marks of the respondent no. 9 and four others. Accordingly, their merit position was changed. Pursuant to the opinion of the Commission and after hearing the appellant, the Commission, under its communication dated 14th December 2010, informed its decision to the State Government and recommended that the respondent no. 9 be appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Bihar Police Service and the appellant be offered employment in the Bihar Education service. Consequent to the said communication, under notification dated 7th March 2011 issued by the State Government in the Home Department, the respondent no. 9 was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Bihar Police Service and the appellant was relieved. 4. In the ensuing litigation, the said Notification dated 7th March 2011 is the subject matter of challenge in the above CWJC No. 3571 of 2011. The said writ petition is admitted to final hearing. Pending the petition, the learned single Judge has ordered to maintain status quo as it obtained on 19th May 2011. 5. The controversy is – what was the status quo as on 19th May 2011. According to the State Government, pursuant to the Notification dated 7th March 2011, the appellant was relieved from service. Pending the petition, the learned single Judge has ordered to maintain status quo as it obtained on 19th May 2011. 5. The controversy is – what was the status quo as on 19th May 2011. According to the State Government, pursuant to the Notification dated 7th March 2011, the appellant was relieved from service. He, therefore, pending the writ petition cannot continue as Deputy Superintendent of Police. We are also informed at the Bar that the respondent no. 9 had, pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 7th March 2011, reported for duty as Deputy Superintendent of Police and was sent for training. As on date, he is undergoing training at the Police Training College at Bhagalpur. 6. It is apparent that it is the Commission which had goofed up the results resulting in the present and several other litigations. Besides, although the Commission had recommended as early as on 14th December 2010 that the appellant be offered appointment in the Bihar Education Service, till date no appointment order has been issued appointing the appellant in the Bihar Education Service. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be made to suffer for the shortcomings of the Commission or the State Government. He having been appointed to the Bihar Police Service, having undergone training at the cost of people, having rendered service for six years and having been confirmed as such, it would not be just or proper to ask him to leave the service for no fault of his and to keep him waiting for another employment. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. 8. Pending the writ petition before the learned single Judge, there shall be interim stay of the impugned Notification dated 7th March 2011 insofar as the appellant has been relieved as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant will be reinstated in service as Deputy Superintendent of Police within one week from today and will be issued appropriate posting order. The appellant will also be paid salary from the date he was relieved from the service till the date he is reinstated. Such amount shall be paid to the appellant within two months from today. 9. This order shall be subject to the final decision in the pending writ petition. 10. Registry is directed to issue the writ forthwith.