Bharat Pd. Singh vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. This writ application is directed against the orders, as contained in annexures 1 and 1/1.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he was promoted from Class IV post to Class III post on 30.4.1993 by virtue of the order, issued by the Regional Deputy Director, he has been reverted by the orders impugned after lapse of six years without any notice to him.

It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post and since he was having the requisite qualification for promotion to Class III post, he alongwith one Gopal Ram was found eligible for Class ill post and, accordingly, they passed the written test/examination held by the Department, and, ultimately, they were promoted to Class III posts, as far back as on 30.4.1993, which fact would be evident from annexures 17 and 18 to the reply to the counter affidavit. The petitioner thereafter continued alongwith Gopal Ram aforesaid and all of a sudden by virtue of orders, as contained in annexures 1 and 1/ 1, he has been reverted from Class III post to Class IV post without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is also submitted that Gopal Ram, who was promoted alongwith the petitioner, is still continuing on Class lit post.

However, no statement, whatsoever, has been made in the counter affidavit as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the orders impugned or as to whether similarly situated person, namely, Gopal Ram has also been reverted alongwith the petitioner.

It appears that the requirements of law were followed while considering the cases of the petitioner and Gopal Ram for promotion to Class III posts. The requisite written test was taken, where the petitioner and Gopal Ram were found successful and, accordingly, they were promoted in the year 1993.

Now even assuming that the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, was not the competent authority to promote the petitioner, a formal show-cause notice was required to be given in compliance of the principles of Natural Justice.

Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record that no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner to justify his stand for promotion to Class III post. Non-observance of the principle of Natural Justice, therefore, would be sufficient grounds to set aside the orders impugned.

For the reasons aforementioned, orders impugned, as contained In annexures 1 and 1/1, are held to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of Natural Justice.

In the result, this application is allowed and the orders impugned, as contained in annexures 1 and 1/1, are set aside. No order as to costs.