Sri Dinesh Rajak vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. Both these writ applications since arise out of common facts and law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

Petitioner, Dinesh Rajak, of C.W.J.C. No. 6382 of 1999 has challenged the orders, as contained in annexures 13 and 14, whereby and whereunder his promotion to the post of typist has been cancelled and he has been reverted to the substantive post of Kamdar.

According to the case of petitioner Dinesh Rajak, he was appointed as Kamdar sometime in the year 1973 and had continued on that post for several years. In the year 1985 the respondents felt the necessity to appoint/promote persons on the post of typist/clerk/assistant. The petitioner, accordingly, was considered and he was promoted to the post of Clerk from the post of Kamdar vide order as contained in annexure 5 dated 20th December, 1982 on temporary basis and by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 6 dated January 1988, he was confirmed on the post of clerk and now by orders, as contained in annexures 13 and 14 he has been reverted back to the substantive post of Kamdar.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had worked under the respondents on the post of Kamdar and his services were found quite satisfactory so his case was considered by the authorities for promotion, and, accordingly, he was promoted to the post of clerk and he continued on the post of clerk for several years till passing of the orders impugned, therefore, the authorities concerned should reconsider the case of the petitioner.

JC to AAG I, on the basis of the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner was illegally promoted to the post of clerk and the authorities realising their mistakes rectified the same by issuing the impugned orders.

It appears that petitioner Bishundeo Prasad Yadav of C.W.J.C. No. 10839 of 1998 had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 678 of 1988 for his promotion to Class III post. The writ application aforesaid, however, was disposed of on 13.1.1997 and this Court held that since the petitioner is working as Kamdar he may be considered for promotion only for the post of Field Operator and not for Class III post, and, accordingly, the writ application was dismissed.

In view of the order, passed by this Court, as referred to above, the respondents issued the orders impugned, as contained in annexures 13 and 14, in case of petitioner Dinesh Rajak aforesaid holding that the petitioner has illegally been promoted to the ex-cadre post of clerk, which was not permissible.

So far petitioner Dinesh Rajak afore said is concerned, it is almost admitted that the post, on which he was promoted, was an ex-cadre post and, therefore, his promotion was ab initio void.

From the materials on record, it appears that so far Kamdars are concerned, as per the line of promotion, they can be considered for promotion to the posts of Field Operation in the Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Bihar, but, in no way, a Kamdar can be promoted to the ex-cadre post of Clerk.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, orders impugned, as contained in annexures 13 and 14 C.W.J.C. No. 6382 of 1999, in my opinion, do not suffer from any infirmity.

So far petitioner Bishundeo Prasad Yadav of C.W.J.C. No. 10839 of 1998 is concerned, it appears that this petitioner wanted promotion on the post of clerk in the like manner, petitioner Dinesh Rajak of C.W.J.C. No. 6382 of 1999 was promoted, as he was senior to him.

Since promotion of petitioner Dinesh Rajak of C.W.J.C. No. 6382 of 1999 on ex-cadre post has been found to be ab initio void, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to this petitioner, as prayed for.

However, the case of the petitioners of both these writ applications may be considered by the authorities for promotion to the posts of Field Operator, in case they are found eligible.

For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in these writ applications. These writ applications are, therefore, dismissed.