Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 130 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar

2015-01-20

GOPAL PRASAD, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2015
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, CJ.:–In this batch of Letters Patent Appeals, common question of facts and law are involved and, in fact, they are filed against a common order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.9218 of 2013 and batch cases. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged for spraying D.D.T. seasonally. Initially, they were engaged on 28.01.1992 and thereafter they were being engaged for every year for about 30-40 days, depending upon the need. 3. The State of Bihar framed the Bihar Group ‘D’ (Recruitment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The procedure to be followed while making appointment to Group ‘D’ is prescribed therein. The Rules, inter alia, provide for preparation of panels by the concerned appointing authorities, in accordance with the guidelines and criteria stipulated in the Rules as well as the one that may be framed by the Government. 4. In the District of Saran that exercise was undertaken and a list of applicants was prepared by the concerned Selection Committees, formed in accordance with the Rules. The grievance of the appellants is that they have been shown at far below place in the list, virtually making the chances of their being appointed very bleak. They claim preferential treatment, on the basis of their prior engagement as DDT Sprayers. 5. The appellants made a representation to the District Magistrate, the Chairman of the Selection Committee raising certain objections, as to the fixation of priorities. Through his order dated 13.03.2013, the District Magistrate informed the appellants that they do not qualify for any priority and they can be placed only along with the candidates, who are not entitled for any priority. The said proceedings were challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by taking the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order, and if the appellants are, so advised, they can approach the Commissioner. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals. 6. Heard Sri Prashant Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Mritunjay Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C.-23 for the respondents. 7. The Rules are brief in their content. They provide for constitution of Selection Committee and the procedure to be followed for preparation of panels for appointment to Group ‘D’ employees. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals. 6. Heard Sri Prashant Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Mritunjay Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C.-23 for the respondents. 7. The Rules are brief in their content. They provide for constitution of Selection Committee and the procedure to be followed for preparation of panels for appointment to Group ‘D’ employees. As regards other details, the Government is conferred with the power to stipulate them. 8. In the Circular dated 29th June, 2011, the Government issued certain guidelines. For example, it mandates that if, an individual is working on daily wages against the vacant posts carrying the emoluments from the Government fund, he shall be considered for appointment against such vacancy. Benefits are conferred upon the persons, who have put in 240 days of work, obviously in a calendar year. Other such benefits were also conferred. 9. We find it difficult to fit the appellants into any such category. After verification of the relevant facts as well as the Circulars, the District Magistrate has taken the view that the appellants can be included in the 4th priority list. 10. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the District Magistrate or the one passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. All these Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.