DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. Development, Government of Bihar, Patna

SATYENDRA PRASAD SINGH, son of Sri. Ram Birajan Singh, resident of village-Prabodhi Narendra, P.O.+P.S.-Sarai, District-Vaishali. …….Petitioner

1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Versus Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.

6. Laxaman Bhagat, Incharge Officer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.

7. Dharmendra Kumar Chaudhary, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Chaudhary, Resident of Parwati Bhawan, Opposite F.C.I., Godown, Sikandarpur, Akahara Ghat Road, P.S.-Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur. …….Respondents. 2

1. SUDAMA PATHAK, son of Late Bhrigu Ashram, resident of With CWJC No.13247 of 2003 Mohalla+P.S.-Mithanpur, P.O.-Ramna, District-Muzaffarpur.

2. SUSHIL KUMAR, son of Sri. Harendra Ojha, village +P.O.-Khabra, P.S.-Sadar, Muzaffarpur.

3. DEPENDRA PRASAD SINGH, so of Sri. Dayashankar Singh, resident of village-Prabdhi Narendra, P.O. +P.S.-Sarai, District-Vaishali. Versus ……..Petitioners

The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

The Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur.

Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur.

Laxaman Bhagat, Incharge Officer, Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarpur. ……Respondent 1st Set

Dharmendra Kumar Chaudhary, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Chaudhary, Resident of Parwati Bhawan, Opposite F.C.I., Godown, Sikandarpur, Akahara Ghat Road, P.S.-Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur. ----------- ……..Respondent 2nd Set.

07. 25.07.2009 The first writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 536 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the right of the four writ petitioners of the remaining two writ petitions to work as Pipe Line Inspector under Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. It may be noted that during pendency of the said writ petition the four writ petitioners of the remaining two writ petitions were removed from the post of Pipe Line Inspector and petitioner of the first writ petition was placed 3 thereon. In that manner, the grievance of the writ petitioner of the first writ petition of C.W.J.C. No. 536 of 2003 is fully satisfied and the writ petition has become infructuous for all intent and purpose. The second writ petition is by Satyendra Prasad Singh being C.W.J.C. No. 12774 of 2003 and the third writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 13247 of 2003 is by Sudama Pathak, Sushil Kumar and Dependra Prasad Singh.

In both these two writ petitions Dharmendra Kumar Singh has been made Respondent No. 7 who was the writ petitioner of the first writ petition. In both these two writ petitions the promotion of Dharmendra Kumar Singh to the post of Pipe Line Inspector and removal of the four writ petitioners from the said post of the Corporation is under challenge. Counter affidavits have been filed. Respondent No. 7 has appeared. With consent of parties, the writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself. On behalf of the writ petitioners of the second writ petition, it is submitted that by virtue of practice prevailing in the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation they were initially working as Assistant/Clerks in the Water works. They were then appointed as Pipe Line Inspector on which post they have worked for a long period. They thus acquired necessary experience and could not have been reverted Assistant/Clerk.

As against Respondent No. 7 his case is that 4 he was appointed as a Peon in the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation. He had been on his own pleadings before the Corporation as well as this Court on earlier occasion being working in the Corporation since 01.07.1985. He was appointed as Pipe Line Inspector giving two jumps in the pay scale and as against the cadre of employees of water work Section who are to be promoted to Pipe Line Inspector, he being a Peon was made Pipe Line Inspector. This was on basis of ITI Plumber Trade Certificate obtained by Respondent No. 7 in the year 1987 showing himself to be a regular student thereof and on basis of Intermediate in Science having passed as a regular student thereof in 1991 whereas he was in service since 1985 both these qualifications were not from Muzaffarpur locally but from Katihar far away from Muzaffarpur. It is thus submitted that these certificates have been fraudulently obtained or can not be given any credence because during the said period he was in regular service at Muzaffarpur in the Corporation and could not have attended those courses/classes as regular student either at the ITI or at the Intermediate Science level.

On behalf of the Corporation, it is submitted that petitioner Satyendra Prasad Singh joined as Assistant in the pay scale of 825-1200 and was in the water work Section. He had no technical qualification. He was not appointed as Pipe Line Inspector. He was only asked to officiate as such. The 5 pay scale of Pipe Line Inspector is the same i.e. 825-1200. There not being sufficient sanctioned post nor the said petitioner having the qualification, has he been reverted back to his post of Assistant. So far as three writ petitioners of the third writ petition is concerned i.e. Sudama Pathak, Sushil Kumar and Dependra Prasad Singh, it is submitted that there were Clerks holding substantive post as such in the pay scale of 1200-

1800. In absence of any regular person available for filling up the two sanctioned post of Pipe Line Inspector which is in the pay scale of 825-1200, they were also asked to officiate as such. On Respondent No. 7 being found qualified and fit for appointment and available in the Corporation itself, he was appointed and the four petitioners of the two writ petitions put back on their original substantive post. There was nothing wrong done. In my view, the contention of the writ petitioners as against they being put back to their post can not be accepted. Undisputedly the four writ petitioners do not have technical qualification the post. The technical qualification was earlier ITI Plumber Trade Certificate. In recent past it was made qualification approved by P.W.D. Respondent No. 7 has been appointed as P.W.D. recognizes ITI Plumber Trade Certificate. It may be noted that the pay scale of the post of Assistant as held by writ petitioner 6 Satyendra Prasad Singh is the same i.e.

825-1200 and he was in the water work Section which is the cadre from which Pipe Line Inspector is to be appointed. He does not posses the said qualification and as such could not be placed as Pipe Line Inspector. The categorical stand of the Corporation is that they were only made to officiate. It was neither their substantive post nor there substantive promotion. They were reverted to their substantive post and there is nothing wrong in it. I am inclined to accept this pleading of the Corporation. Merely because petitioner Satyendra Prasad Singh has worked for several years as Pipe Line Inspector. He can not be said to have acquired the technical qualification needed for his entry into the said post. Thus in my view, the so called reversion of Satyendra Prasad Singh to the post of Assistant from the officiating position of Pipe Line Inspector can not be faulted with. Next we come to the last writ petition which has three writ petitioners namely Sudama Pathak, Sushil Kumar and Dependra Prasad Singh.

It is not in dispute that there were substantively Clerks in the pay scale of 1200-1800. They were asked to work as Pipe Line Inspector which has a pay scale of 825-1200 much lower than their own pay scale. Thus they being on higher post with a higher pay scale want to work and continue on a lower post with a lower pay scale, 7 the Court wonders why. This can not be permitted. If they are reverted to their substantive post, it can not be said to be wrong in any manner more so when there are only two sanctioned post of Pipe Line Inspector and four persons working thereon. Thus the grievance of the four writ petitioners of the two writ petitions as against their so called reversion can not be entertained by this Court for the reasons as aforesaid. Now coming to the fate of Respondent No. 7. a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation in which it is stated that on coming to know of the certificate and qualification of Respondent No.

7 having been obtained in course of employment in the Corporation, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Two specific charges were framed against him. One for obtaining ITI Plumber Trade Certificate as a full time student from Katihar in 1987 when he was in service of the Corporation at Muzaffarpur since 01.07.1985 itself and the other charge was with regard to passing Intermediate Science Examination in 1991 while in service at Muzaffarpur from Katihar without knowledge or permission of the Corporation. The departmental proceedings have concluded on 14.07.2008 holding petitioner guilty on both counts but awarding him only minor punishment. Petitioner submits that once it was held by the departmental authorities 8 that it was not possible for Respondent No. 7 to pursue his regular studies at Katihar either in the ITI or for Intermediate Science while working at Muzaffarpur since July, 1985, the authenticity and validity of those certificates should have been held to be invalid and Respondent No.

7 should not be given benefit thereof. Further petitioners have pointed out that Respondent No. 7 was appointed as a Peon and from the post of Peon he was given jump of two pay scales and made a Pipe Line Inspector straightaway. The pay scale of Peon is 775-1025, the next promotional pay scale is 800-1150 and the third promotional scale is 825-1200. Respondent No. 7 was in the pay scale 775-1025 and he was directly taken to Pipe Line Inspector in the pay scale of 825-1200 which is impermissible. There appears to be some substance in both these contentions of the petitioners. Respondent No. 7, even though more than a year has passed since order of the disciplinary proceedings, is yet to challenge the same. Thus it appears to be established that the certificates and the qualifications obtained by him while working at Muzaffarpur from Katihar was not possible as a whole time student and cannot be relied on. On the other hand, Respondent No. 7 submits that the statement made by Respondent No. 7 in his earlier writ petition that he was working under the Corporation since