Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 502 (PAT)

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2017-04-11

RAJENDRA MENON, SUDHIR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants herein, were working as Computer Operators and they have worked for more than 10 years but their services were not being regularized instead an advertisement was issued for filling-up the posts on the regular basis. They invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Writ Court and sought for their appointment/regularization or at least consideration in the ongoing process of recruitment after granting them some age relaxation and weightage for the service rendered. Be that as it may, in the proceeding of the Writ Court, some of the interim orders passed by the learned Writ Court goes to show that the initial stage considering the grievance of the petitioners, the Court sought for counter affidavit to find out as to whether any regularization or benefit is being granted in the ongoing recruitment process to the petitioners or can be granted. It seems that when the matter was taken up before the learned Writ Court on 09.08.2016, the learned Writ Court took note of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and recorded the following findings and disposed of the matter: “The writ application now stands disposed of in view of the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit that all these computer operators shall be given an opening coupled with weightage as well as concession in age while considering filling up the posts on a regular basis. Let the respondents do the needful in this regard in terms of the stand taken in the counter affidavit.” 2. This was apparently done in view of the averments made by the respondents in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of their counter affidavit. 3. The petitioners filed this Letters Patent Appeal on account of the fact that in other Departments, like the Transport Department, the benefit of regularization has been extended to similarly situated employees and 35% of the vacancy has been reserved in the recruitment process for persons like the petitioners, however, in view of the benefit granted in the Transport Department, the petitioners were instigated to file this Letters Patent Appeal. Be that as it may, when this matter was taken up for consideration on 09.11.2016, this Court after taking note various aspects of the matter, sought clarification from the respondents on two issues which are as under: (i) Whether the State is contemplating a fresh advertisement by granting age relaxation to the Computer Operators presently working and by giving suitable weightage for their work experience; or (ii) Why the Computer Operators are not entitled to regular pay scale at par with the regular employees in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013) decided on 26th October, 2016. 4. In response to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents which goes to show that now they have taken u-turn from what was said on the counter affidavit filed before the learned Writ Court. In paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit filed in this appeal, the respondents say that an advertisement has been issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the Commission is of the opinion that contrary to the recruitment rules, no exemption and benefit can be granted. Meaning thereby, the learned Writ Court had disposed of the matter in the manner as detailed hereinabove based on the averment made in the counter affidavit from which now the Government has withdrawn or retracted, that being so it is a case where the writ petition has been disposed of on consideration which was not at all adhered to and statement made was not being complied as is evident from the counter affidavit now filed by the respondents in this appeal. Accordingly, it is a fit case where the order passed by the learned Writ Court should be set aside, this writ appeal, the petition should be restored to its original file and the matter should be remanded back for fresh consideration, including considering the question of equal work for equal wages as per the judgment in the case Jagjit Singh (Supra) after hearing all concern. After filing of this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioners have been transferred and shifted to various offices and for the same, I.A. No. 7391 of 2016 has been filed. After filing of this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioners have been transferred and shifted to various offices and for the same, I.A. No. 7391 of 2016 has been filed. This issue is also now to be considered by the learned Writ Court and it would be for the learned Writ Court to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate order as permissible under the law. 5. So far as, this Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of certain statement made by the respondents which is now no more their stand or being implemented that being so the order passed by the Writ Court on 09.08.2016 in C.W.J.C.No. 22385 of 2014 is quashed, the writ petition is restored to its original file and we direct for listing the writ petition before the appropriate Bench in the next week for consideration. We may observe that any appointment made shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition and direction as may be issued by the learned Writ Court after hearing all concern. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.