Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Housing
2016-12-16
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, HEMANT GUPTA
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in the present petition is to Rule 5(2) of the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2014 whereby, in the event any vacant post remains, the same is contemplated to be filled up either by deputation or on contract basis. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government in its executive power has taken a decision on 19th of April, 2008 for appointment of City Managers in every Urban Local Bodies. It is thereafter, a circular was issued on 3rd of May, 2008. In pursuance of such decision, 124 posts of City Managers were created. An advertisement was issued on 18th of September, 2009 inviting applications for appointment to the post of 124 City Managers in the urban local bodies. A written test was to be conducted on 20th of December, 2009 followed by interview. Thereafter, the petitioners claim to be appointed as City Managers on contract for a period of one year, which contract is being renewed from time to time. 4. The petitioners submit that thereafter, Rules have been framed in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and published in the official gazette on 5th of January, 2015. Such rule contemplate grant of age relaxation to the candidates who have been appointed on contract basis as well as marks for experiences to the candidates who have worked on contract basis but does not deal with the candidates like the present petitioners, who have joined in terms of the policy decision of the State. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that Sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 contemplate that in case of any vacancy remaining after making appointments in terms of Clause (1) of Rule 5, the same can be filled up either by deputation or on contract basis. The challenge to the said Rule 5 (2) is on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and creating an artificial classification, therefore, does not satisfy the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The apprehension of the petitioners is that contractual employees such as the petitioners are likely to be replaced by another set of contractual employees in terms of the said clause. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. 7.
The apprehension of the petitioners is that contractual employees such as the petitioners are likely to be replaced by another set of contractual employees in terms of the said clause. 6. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. 7. Rule 5 contemplates that all appointments to the cadre of City Managers shall be made on the basis of direct recruitment by written examination and interview. Sub-Rule (2) contemplates that if after such process of appointment, any vacancy remains, the same shall be filled up by way of deputation or contract basis. We do not find that Sub-Rule (2) is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The substantive rules contemplates filling up the post by direct recruitment but on the basis of written test and interview. It is the remaining vacant posts which are required to be filled up by way of deputation or on contract basis. The purpose for filling up of the post on deputation or on contract is that the efficiency in the third tier of the urban local bodies is not hampered in any manner. It is a qualification based on reasoning and cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. 8. The only condition we find requires some clarification is filling of the remaining vacant post on contract basis. We find that one set of contractual employees, such as, the petitioners cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employee. Therefore, we order that petitioners shall continue to be engaged as contractual employee till such time regular appointments are made in terms of Rule 5(1) of the aforesaid rules. It goes without saying that in case of any misconduct, of any of the contractual employee, the State Government shall be competent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9. With the said direction and liberty, the writ application is disposed of.