ANIRUDH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

5, and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh for respondent no.3. This writ petition has been preferred jointly by the five petitioners with the prayer to direct the respondent authorities to act upon the merit list marked Annexure 4 to the writ petition, and promote them to the next higher category of class III employees in the Government of Bihar. - 2 -

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. According to the writ petition, the four petitioners were appointed on class IV post and continue to function as such under respondentno.5 in the district of Banka. In view of the government circular, 50% of class III posts are reserved for the persons of the category of the petitioners which have to be filled up by promotion on the basis of a limited competitive examination. Such a selection process was held in October 1994, and the merit list was prepared on 30.6.95 (Annexure 4). The same is in two parts. The first relates to class IV employees of the district of Bhagalpur, wherein one Smt. Madhuri Devi figures at sl.no.2. The second part comprises of those of class IV employees who are in present district of Banka wherein five petitioners figure. It is further stated in the writ petition that in view of the inaction on part of the respondent authorities, the said Madhuri Devi had preferred CWJC No.8663 of 1998 (Smt. Madhuri Devi vs. State of Bihar), which was allowed by order dated 3.12.99 (Annexure 7). It is further stated in the writ petition that Arun Kumar Yadav and others, being similarly circumstanced employees had preferred CWJC No. 1310 of 1996 (Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar), which was allowed by order dated 1.4.97 (Annexure 6). It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of inaction of the respondent authorities.

3. Learned AAG has supported the impugned action. The State of Bihar and its functionaries have filed their counter affidavit - 3 - wherein the stand of the State of Bihar is disclosed.

4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that 50% of the posts of class III post for the category of the employees of the petitioners as well as the said Smt. Madhuri Devi has to be promoted from them. The selection process had taken place in October 1994, wherein the five petitioners as well as the said Madhuri Devi did participate. It appears that the entire selection process comprises of two parts. The first part comprises of the written examination and typing test which carry 60% of the mark. The second part comprises of experience and length of service which carry 40% marks. The merit list marked Annexure 4 to the writ petition is the result of the first part, namely, written and typing test carrying 60% marks. In fact the same is headed “ It is evident that Annexure 4 is not the final merit list.

5. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure 7), disposing of CWJC No. 8663 of 1998, that the respondent authorities had been directed to fill up 50% of the posts on the basis of the written test held on 23.10.1994. Madhuri Devi was not promoted leading to contempt application being MJC No. 2836 of

2000. The same was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 3.11.2003. A copy of the same has been supplied by learned AAG which has been placed on record, and copies whereof - 4 - has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner also. It appears on a perusal of the same that Madhuri Devi stood at sl.no.63 of the final list. The number of posts was far less and, therefore, Madhuri Devi could not be selected. No person below her was appointed. It is thus evident that the order on CWJC No. 8663 of 1998 does not come to the aid of the present petitioners.

6. In so far as the district of Banka is concerned, the final gradation list could not be prepared, inter alia, for the reason that the present district of Banka, which was part of the undivided district of Bhagalpur, was created as a separate district. In view of the consequent administrative problems, the final list could not be prepared, let alone the question of being acted upon. Furthermore, the authority to conduct the selection process was earlier with local committee headed by the District Magistrate, and has since been transferred to the Bihar Public Service Commission.

7. In so far as the order dated 1.4.97 (Annexure 6), passed in CWJC No. 1310 of 1996 is concerned, the same related to the district of Muzaffarpur and is, therefore, not relevant in the present context.

8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) - 5 -